Misunderstood obedience and the liturgy

[AlexV]

Those who wanted to get rid of numerous aspects of the Roman Rite…including the Roman Canon, Latin, the Gelasian Offertory, the cult of numerous ancient martyrs, the lives of the saints in the Breviary, you name it…

…they had a masterstroke of an idea. The obedience card.

“If the pope says it, it must be obeyed.” “If your bishop says it, it must be obeyed.” “If your pastor says it, it must be obeyed.”

1500+ years of liturgical tradition? The pope can erase it. You must obey. Your church and its sanctuary must be wrecked and then renovated? You must obey. But wait, no official document mandates such a renovation? Doesn’t matter…the bishop said so.

We tend to think of the Renaissance as a more autocratic time than the 60s. Not so.

1570, the pope explicitly protected numerous ancient liturgies. As late as the 19th century, Paris was still using its own Missal under the generous recognition of liturgies by Pius V.

1970, no exceptions. All must obey. Novus Ordo Missae or nothing.

The obedient obeyed. One day they’d defend to the death that Mass must be in Latin…the next they’d defend to the death the vernacular. Obedient puppets.

 

[Damascus]

It is truly a sad day when posts like this pop up.

I will pray for you, and for you to find peace.

 

[AlexV]

I didn’t state anything that does not accord with authentic and traditional Catholic teaching or historical reality.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You apparently think in extremes. Does it not occur to you that people who attend the Mass in the vernacular, as well as people who attend the Tridentine, are both attending true and valid Masses? That if they have a particular devotion to one or the other, this is perfectly all right?

Also, where do you draw the line, relatively speaking?

"I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church because they are set out in Scripture and Tradition, interpreted through the Magesterium and infallibly articulated in matters of faith and reason by the Pope, and to be followed with obedience BECAUSE they are true, just and reasonable. . .

OR

"I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church which I personally think are correct. If I am a dissenter, I will play one of two cards:

A. It’s not ME doing the dissenting, it’s the CHURCH which somehow strayed or erred. I’m not leaving the “true Church”, it LEFT ME. So I will either change to a ‘better’ religion or just consider myself ‘spiritual, not religious’, etc. And anybody going along with the church is just an obedient sheep, not a brave person like me.

B. It’s not ME doing the dissenting, the Church is just a fallible institution and something else–my own wishes and desires, the teachings of society, etc. are more “true”, or relevant, for ‘real life.’ Therefore, I will continue to call myself a Catholic while picking and choosing what I will, and will not believe. I don’t think I HAVE to LEAVE the church even if the only thing I share in common with the faith is calling myself Catholic. Sure it isn’t perfect but nothing is, everything is relative.

A question for the OP: Are you one who calls himself or herself Catholic yet refuses to obey the teaching of the Church? Are you from group A or group B?

 

[AlexV]

I have absolute no problem with the fact that the Mass according to the Missal of 2002 is valid.

None whatsoever.

 

[Damascus]

I can go to a traditional Mass in my Arch.

You seem to be a person who is unaware of certain facts.

 

[AlexV]

And there are many souls who are not allowed to attend the Tridentine Mass anywhere within several hundreds miles despite petition after petition signed by hundreds…and some, even, who have been told by their bishop that they are “disobedient” if they leave the borders of their diocese to attend those far distant liturgies.

 

[Damascus]

Had you worded it that way in your OP maybe I would not have made my post.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, Alex, I’m in that position myself–the closest Indult parish to me is about 150 miles away–not exactly a hop, skip, and jump!

It has been hard, as I would have enjoyed the Tridentine Mass. However, with the new indult hopefully coming, and a new bishop here, it’s very possible that the current situation will be changing.

Me, I offer it up. After all, I CAN and do get to the Mass in the vernacular weekly; I haven’t missed Mass. And those priests and bishops–they’re not impeccable. Pray for them. Most of them mean no harm, anyway. Those who do mean harm need our prayers all the more.

Prayer is the real answer. God sends us many trials to test us; some from people we might not expect!

 

[AJV]

A nitpick (as usual):

The Offertory is NOT Gelasian. At that time only the secret was the Offertory prayer. Offertory prayers of the type you describe only came in much, much later and are ‘Gallician’ as is the Asperges, the Prayers at the foot of the altar, etc., etc. The only ‘Roman’ prayer in the TLM Offertory was/is:

Deus, qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti, et mirabilius reformasti: da nobis per huius aquae et vini mysterium, eius divinitatis esse consortes, qui humanitatis nostrae fieri dignatus est particeps, Iesus Christus, Filius tuus, Dominus noster: Qui tecum vivit, etc., etc.

Which is an adaptation of the GREGORIAN (later than Gelasian) Sacramentary, on the Collect for Christmas:

Deus, qui humanae substantiae dignitatem et mirabiliter condidisti, et mirabilius reformasti, da nobis quaesumus eius divinitatis esse consortes qui humanitatis nostrae fieri dignatus est participes. Per dominum nostrum, etc., etc.

In the current missal(a.k.a the ‘Novus Ordo’) this is:

Per huius aquae et vini mysterium eius efficiamur divinitatis consortes qui humanitatis nostrae fieri dignatus est particeps.

Everything else in the Traditional Offertory is Gallician: and most of them worked their way into the Roman liturgy due to influences at the Papal court in Avignon, when the Popes resided there.

And speaking of 1500 year tradition: how come no one uses the breviary of St. Pius V whose psalter for one has a longer proven history, more than any single missal text? Did not St. Pius X also set up a commision (under I think Cardinal Rampolla, who was also charged with revising the Missal- a task that was never done) to revise the legends of saints? 1500+ years of liturgical tradition? The pope can erase it. You must obey.

 

[AlexV]

No, it is not correct to say the pope can simply “erase” whatever he pleases in 1500+ years of tradition and “you must obey”.

The pope could not announce tomorrow that we will gather on Sunday and say the words of institution, and nothing else, and that’s the new order of Mass.

As for the breviary of Pius V, the changes in the Psalter were purely done to allow for the full celebration of both the sanctoral (which is always increasing in size) and the temporal (which remains fixed).

The Psalter’s basic principle, as noted in the general rubrics of the 1568 Breviary, was all the psalms in one week. That goes back to Benedict’s Rule. That rule was not changed in the Roman Breviary ever until…oh, guess what, 1971.

As for the Offertory…I have a facsimile of the Offertory prayer for the water mingled with wine, which, as you note, does indeed come from the Christmas Mass (or vice versa…Christmas took it from the Offertory…probably the latter, though scholars disagree on that). The Gelasian Sacramentary also contains…amazingly…fragments of the offering prayer over the wine AND the invocation of the Spirit which appear fully at the earliest surviving date in manuscripts from the Strasbourg Cathedral library (= Gallican or Gallo-Romano). What 1970 did to the Offertory was not “business as usual”. The problem is the Gelasian Sacramentary is FRAGMENTARY. But that doesn’t mean what isn’t there wasn’t in existence. It means we have a more complicated, less sure footing.

But, then again, you betray your prejudice when you refer to the Novus Ordo Missal as “the current” Missal. That needs qualification. There are people for whom the 1962 is the “current” Missal.

If the pope ordered jumping jacks at the Consecration, would you “obey”?

A legitimate question, since at least one online alleged source of “orthodox Catholic” information says he would.

That’s the scary end result of the misunderstanding of obedience.

 

[AJV]

AlexV:

But, then again, you betray your prejudice when you refer to the Novus Ordo Missal as “the current” Missal. That needs qualification. There are people for whom the 1962 is the “current” Missal.

The prejudices you speak of are apparently so deeply engrained in my subconscious that I didn’t know they existed.
To the best of my knowledge I don’t have any problem with people attending Indult, Ambrosian, Carthusian, Mozarabic Masses. None whatsoever. By way of justification I spent my two month summer holiday typing out the common and proper Masses of saints from my 1954 missal for subsequent editing and posting by a former FSSP seminarian. If you PM me with your email address I’ll be happy to send you the documents since he has apparently not yet got to editing the complete thing.
Kindly accept my apologies and replace “current missal” with “latest edito typica of the Roman Missal a.k.a. the Novus Ordo”

No, it is not correct to say the pope can simply “erase” whatever he pleases in 1500+ years of tradition and “you must obey”.

Oh, yes, I definitely don’t believe that a Pope should do it.

The pope could not announce tomorrow that we will gather on Sunday and say the words of institution, and nothing else, and that’s the new order of Mass.

As for the breviary of Pius V, the changes in the Psalter were purely done to allow for the full celebration of both the sanctoral (which is always increasing in size) and the temporal (which remains fixed).

OK fine, so why didn’t he just change the rubrics to allow the psalms of ferial days, etc. to be said on Double feasts and below (which he did anyway with his new psalter)? Why re-write the psalter? Why suppress institutions like the Laudate psalms that according to Baumstark went back to the early Apostolic age and maybe even back to Christ? Why suppress an ancient schema well over 1500 years old even at his day, in favour of a schema drafted by experts which had more in common with the neo-Gallcian breviaries of 18th century France? Why destroy the links that existed between the Roman and Eastern Offices in the matter of psalm 118 and the distribution of psalms at Lauds and Vespers?

The Psalter’s basic principle, as noted in the general rubrics of the 1568 Breviary, was all the psalms in one week. That goes back to Benedict’s Rule. That rule was not changed in the Roman Breviary ever until…oh, guess what, 1971.

What about the rules for ending Lauds with 148, 149, 150, the complete revolution in assignment of psalms, assigning those traditionally said for Matins to Compline and destroying the ratio in which psalms were arranged? What about the elimination of the distinctions between festal, ferial and Sunday offices?

As for the Offertory…I have a facsimile of the Offertory prayer for the water mingled with wine, which, as you note, does indeed come from the Christmas Mass (or vice versa…Christmas took it from the Offertory…probably the latter, though scholars disagree on that). The Gelasian Sacramentary also contains…amazingly…fragments of the offering prayer over the wine AND the invocation of the Spirit which appear fully at the earliest surviving date in manuscripts from the Strasbourg Cathedral library (= Gallican or Gallo-Romano). What 1970 did to the Offertory was not “business as usual”. The problem is the Gelasian Sacramentary is FRAGMENTARY. But that doesn’t mean what isn’t there wasn’t in existence. It means we have a more complicated, less sure footing.

I thoroughly affirm to almost 99% certainty that there was no such prayer at the Offertory. Give me the quote and I’ll eat my hat (which I do anyway nowadays what with all my mistakes )

Alex, I’ve NEVER read about the Collect being borrowed from the Offertory, and pardon mean as if I regard it as highly improbable. Would you mind telling me which scholars support that view and regard it as more “probable”? I would be very interested in knowing. Bishop, Cabrol, Fortescue and Jungmann all say the latter i.e. the offertory is an adaptation of the Collect. This seems highly probable to me, despite my rudimentary liturgical knowledge because:
In the earliest books (Leonine) a similar thing appears in the following form:

Deus, qui in humanae substantiae dignitate et mirabiliter condedisti et mirabilius reformasti: da, quaesumus, nobis Iesu Christi filii tui eius diuinitatis esse consortes, qui humanitatis nostrae fieri dignatus est particeps

continued…

 

[AJV]

And in the Gelasian (Ventus):

Deus qui humanae substantiae dignitate et mirabiliter condedisti et mirabilius reformasti: da, quesumus, ut eius efficiamur in diuina consortes qui nostrae humanitatis fieri dignatus est particeps Christus filius tuus.Per eundem dominum, etc., etc.

These are both collects, and since these are the oldest we have, there is no earlier record of it being a secret prayer. So how is it “probable” that it was borrowed from the Offertory?

The Roman liturgy did not have fixed offertory prayers. It CANNOT have been a fixed Offertory prayer despite the fragmentary nature of the Gelasian sacramentary because

1. The later Gregorian editions give us no such prayer , for the offering of the bread, for the offering of the chalice, for the mixing of the chalice, nothing. It only directs that the secret be said during the Offertory.
2. Writers from period say that it is only the secret said as a Offertory prayer. I believe Bishop has some quotes in this regard- in the event you cannot get it, the online Catholic Encyclopedia has more than enough quotes there. The scholars I’ve read (include the 4 mentioned above) are all unanimous in this view. But please, if you have the viewpoint of another scholar post it. I would honestly be very interested in it because I’ve not seen such an opinion before.
3. One needs only to look at the Ordines Romani and its history and see that the prayers were recorded in Ordo XIV as a result of the Gallician influence at the Papal court in Avignon, France. Such is testified by scholars not dealing directly with the Mass and by those dealing with the Mass.

Could you also please post those fragments from the “Gelasian” facsimile you’ve got saying about the offering of the chalice? Or at least tell me the reference. Again, I’ve never seen them in the Gelasian Sacramentary. Especially the Veni Sanctificator. To the best of my knowledge ‘Offerimus tibi, Domine’ is Mozarabic.

Are you sure that your facsimile is Gelasian? Are there any differences in the Canon compared with the Canon of today?

I didn’t say anywhere that the NO was “business as usual”.

 

[jimmy]

To tell the truth, I agree to a large extent with the original poster. The new mass was written and the old was banned because they said so. It was an authoritarian act. It was an act that said, I have authority to do this therefore you must listen. The Church up to 1960 was pretty happy with its liturgy. In 1960 they basically said they are outdated. I have heard several times that the pope had great authority in the rennesaince and the middle ages but they did not compare to the modern popes who have declared all the past to have a poor liturgy.

 

[jimmy]

And speaking of 1500 year tradition: how come no one uses the breviary of St. Pius V whose psalter for one has a longer proven history, more than any single missal text? Did not St. Pius X also set up a commision (under I think Cardinal Rampolla, who was also charged with revising the Missal- a task that was never done) to revise the legends of saints? 1500+ years of liturgical tradition? The pope can erase it. You must obey.

That is a horrible example. Pius X did desire some revision but he did not put forth a whole new liturgy and remove the old. He may have changed one or two things. He did not change the whole liturgy. Pius X acted in accordance with the tradition, which does not say there can’t be change. Paul VI acted against tradition by saying the past was not good enough, we need a whole new liturgy.

 

[Victorious]

=…they had a masterstroke of an idea. The obedience card.

The problem is not with obedience; the real problem is rampant disobedience, coupled with poor catechesis.

 

[AJV]

That is a horrible example. Pius X did desire some revision but he did not put forth a whole new liturgy and remove the old. He may have changed one or two things. He did not change the whole liturgy. Pius X acted in accordance with the tradition, which does not say there can’t be change. Paul VI acted against tradition by saying the past was not good enough, we need a whole new liturgy.

Sorry jimmy but that is exactly what Pope St. Pius X, of blessed memory, did do with regard to the breviary. Chaging the psalter for one, a psalter which has a 1500 year old use, with many traditional elements, is not by any standard minor. Furthermore chaging the rubrics means that on many days means that even the Scripture read in the first nocturn is different. And there are many more. Where, for example, are the variable commemorations fo the Blessed Virgin Mary? With regard to the missal it was not altered much. His death and the death of the head of the commission Cardinal Rampolla prevented any further changes.
If you can try and get a copy of Abhinc duos annos and read it to see St. Pius X’s views on the liturgy. The word he used was ‘squalore’ with reference to certain elements. Of course, in one edition, by I think J. B. O’Connell, it was translated as “imperfections”…
Frankly I don’t approve of either Paul VI revisions in terms of structure, or St. Pius X breviary revisions. I still ask: why was there a need to rewrite the whole thing? Why couldn’t just the rubrics be changed?

Hence to the reformers of the Psalterium Romanum belongs the distinction of having brought to an end the universal observance of a liturgical practice which was followed, one can say, by the Divine Redeemer Himself during His life on earth.

-Anton Bumstark, Comparative liturgy (page 28)

 

[Trident59]

Well said, AlexV,

But you are wasting your breath. Too much “fuzzy” thinking from the left on tese threads.

Think I’ll just pop over to Fisheaters.

 

[bear06]

Those who wanted to get rid of numerous aspects of the Roman Rite…including the Roman Canon, Latin, the Gelasian Offertory, the cult of numerous ancient martyrs, the lives of the saints in the Breviary, you name it…

…they had a masterstroke of an idea. The obedience card.

“If the pope says it, it must be obeyed.” “If your bishop says it, it must be obeyed.” “If your pastor says it, it must be obeyed.”

1500+ years of liturgical tradition? The pope can erase it. You must obey. Your church and its sanctuary must be wrecked and then renovated? You must obey. But wait, no official document mandates such a renovation? Doesn’t matter…the bishop said so.

We tend to think of the Renaissance as a more autocratic time than the 60s. Not so.

1570, the pope explicitly protected numerous ancient liturgies. As late as the 19th century, Paris was still using its own Missal under the generous recognition of liturgies by Pius V.

1970, no exceptions. All must obey. Novus Ordo Missae or nothing.

The obedient obeyed. One day they’d defend to the death that Mass must be in Latin…the next they’d defend to the death the vernacular. Obedient puppets.

Must we relieve the nutty accusations again?! My priest was disobedient to the Pope. I took him on. My bishop was allowing all sorts of dissent and dissenting himself. I took him on. None of the Pope’s during my life have ever dissented from Tradition. I follow Pastor Aeternus in regards to the Holy Father.

Please give me an example of a teaching, document, whatever, from the, let’s say, last two popes that I should have resisted. I hardly think saying that I defend to death the vernacular is anywhere near accurate when I’m an adoremus supporter who attends a Latin Mass. And what, please tell, is the point of this post?

 

[AlexV]

My post was about liturgical “reform”…not about you, amazingly enough, bear6.