Pope Francis and liturgical reforms

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2014taylorj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2

2014taylorj

Guest
Did, pope francis actually declare, with magisterial authority, that the post vatican 2 reforms were “irreversible”? Does this mean that catholics now can’t the reform of the reform, agenda?
 
He said that, but it wasn’t an infallible statement, if that’s what you mean. After the Council of Trent, Pope St. Pius V said that no one could change the missal as promulgated, yet it was.
 
If he did, he’d simply be wrong. By definition they are not irreformable since they themselves were a reform. If something can be changed, it can be changed again. If it can’t be changed, then it couldn’t have been changed in the first place.

Just chalk it up to Pope Francis being Pope Francis.🙃
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
If he did, he’d simply be wrong. By definition they are not irreformable since they themselves were a reform. If something can be changed, it can be changed again. If it can’t be changed, then it couldn’t have been changed in the first place.
Click to expand...
Theologians don’t like the word change. They prefer to say that teachings need to be re-interpreted. It sounds much more palatable that way.
 
Yeah, a Pope cannot bind his successors absolutely in disciplinary matters such as these.
 
Genesis315 said:
If he did, he’d simply be wrong. By definition they are not irreformable since they themselves were a reform.
Click to expand...
Irreversible does not mean irreformable. It means not going backward. It also does not mean we cannot reintroduce some elements of the past. But it does mean we can’t put everything back the way it was.
 
OraLabora said:
Irreversible does not mean irreformable. It means not going backward. It also does not mean we cannot reintroduce some elements of the past. But it does mean we can’t put everything back the way it was.
Click to expand...
Except we absolutely can. He may not want to put the liturgy back the way it was. It may not even be a good idea to put the liturgy back the way it was (debateble, of course). But the Church always has the power to do so, just as she always has the power to introduce new rites or modify existing ones (the substance of the sacraments remaining intact, of course).
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure of that. If (and I’m not saying this ‘is’ the situation) a person was walking toward God, then for whatever reason went off the path toward God and started heading away from Him, the way to get back to God would involve going back to where he originally ‘went off the path’ so that he could from there go forward again (remember, Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life, i.e. the path). There are not ‘many ways’ to the Truth; that is a modernist fantasy, so no, we can’t just stop from where we went wrong and then forge ourselves a whole new path, bypass where we ‘went wrong’, and find ourselves going along to Jesus without going back to the one true path. It’s again a great fantasy, but it isn’t reality.

So yes, sometimes we do need to go backward. For some it might be a few steps back, others a few miles. . .a few hundred. . .a few thousand. . .but we have to ‘go back’ in order to go forward.
 
I read his main point to be that the reform does not need to be reformed but rather implemented correctly. He does not want to perpetuate the myth that the liturgical abuses of the past 50 years were called for in any way by the Second Vatican Council. Some people perpetuating liturgical abuses and attempting to extinguish past practices excused themselves by waving their hands vaguely at “Vatican II,” but remedying those things such people did is not the same as reforming what the Council did.

Could someone cite a document as authoritative as Sacrosanctum Concilium that was just thrown out? No, it is built on the foundation of the Church’s unchanging teachings and has become part of that foundation. I don’t think the Pope was putting any boundaries on his successors, then. He was saying what he believes anyone who ever occupies the Chair of Peter will necessarily say. (In short: don’t waste your prayers on hoping the next Pope will do anything like scrapping Sacrosanctum Concilium. It is not going to happen.)
 
Last edited:
There is no going back. Even Pope Benedict affirmed that the Mass of St. Paul VI is the ordinary form of the Mass. Anyone seriously studying the reform in the 20th century should be able to understand why: the liturgy underwent centuries of neglect and accumulated accrétions of questionable value, and left the laity largely out of the loop, contrary to the goals of Vatican II. Petra is quite right, the issue has always been shaky ex’erimentation. Even Abp. Bugnini alludes to that in his book, especially with respect to music and unauthorized implementation. After years of liturgical stasis, folks got a little giddy about change.

And don’t be fooled into thinking the Tridentine Mass would have somehow been immune to abuse.

While it is true that legally a future pontiff could put things back as they were, realistically I think this extremely unlikely. One may perhaps see an element previously abandoned restored here or there, but for those wanting a wholesale reversal… Pope Benedict made provisions by relaxing the rules for making the EF available. But don’t expect the OF to go away anytime soon.

Moreover, a future pope can certainly abrogate the EF liturgy, or even the OF if something else replaces it. Pius X did just that with the pre-1910 breviary.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top