Quo Primum

[pnewton]

Had nothing to do with his sainthood. It was his relationship to Mary/Virgin. See #13.

It was just an example, btw, either of a theological change or theological uncertainty, since it’s been changed in the vernacular. .

Thanks. I don’t get the uproar, since he was her spouse, but thanks.

Now the whole pro multis issue was just loose translation (too loose), but the point is, in the end, not theological point was contradicted or Mass invalidated. I was going through some old hymns the other day and came across an old quartet song, He Died For Me. I thought of this controversy and thought of how all of these statements, he died for all, he died for many and he died for me, all have different flavors, but none of which contradict, and all of which have meaning to us. Just a side note. Pro multis is in the Mass for a reason, as it is most apt to what is happening there.

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks. I don’t get the uproar, since he was her spouse, but thanks.

I was going through some old hymns the other day and came across an old quartet song, He Died For Me. I thought of this controversy and thought of how all of these statements, he died for all, he died for many and he died for me, all have different flavors, but none of which contradict, and all of which have meaning to us.

Songs are a whole another issue in terms of theology, since I don’t think any Pope has promulgated any one of them, with the possible exception of Jubilate Deo. We’re basically on our own, on that score.

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks. I don’t get the uproar, since he was her spouse, but thanks.

Now the whole pro multis issue was just loose translation (too loose),

For the record, in the Latin EP1, it’s still “Spouse of the same Virgin,” but has been changed in the English to just “Her Spouse” perhaps to avoid any possible controversy. But you’re right, it doesn’t change the validity. And I’m sure the average pew sitter couldn’t care less about it.

 

[pnewton]

Songs are a whole another issue in terms of theology, since I don’t think any Pope has promulgated any one of them, with the possible exception of Jubilate Deo. We’re basically on our own, on that score.

I apologize. I did not mean that this song had anything to do with anything, except the message that there is a since in which I can say Jesus died for me. It is actually an old Gospel men’s quartet song. I miss the that stuff. This is an old recording of it. Sorry to show my age:

youtube.com/watch?v=WVeCV31AdF4

 

[otjm]

Well (and fair) enough, although the word “heresy” is perhaps overused these days when theological change or shift might be more appropriate. It really depends on the type of change. Something like adding or subtracting a reading to or from the liturgy is more of a discipline, whereas changing the description of St. Joseph in the Canon or EP might have a few theologians throwing up their arms. In fact, I remember some claiming that Pope John XXIII might have set a dangerous precedent by adding St. Joseph to the canonized Roman Canon to begin with. That was the first time the Roman Canon had been touched since before Trent, I believe.

I would not be the least bit surprised that some theologians got their knickers in a knot; that seems to be the history of the Church.

About 80 or so of them decided that they needed to take on Paul VI when the ink was not yet dry on Humanae Vitae; and I am not suggesting that the theologians bothered about how (poor old) St Joseph was referenced are of the same ilk - hardly any chance of that.

But it bears keeping in mind that theologians are not guardians of the Faith, but rather commenters upon it; it is up to the Pope ultimately to accept what they say, or reject it.

And on more than a rare occasion, to simply ignore it.

 

[dans0622]

…I can’t see where a Pope has total freedom in such matters.

I think that’s good because he doesn’t have “total freedom.” As Ratzinger said in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

“After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not ‘manufactured’ by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . . The greatness of the liturgy depends—we shall have to repeat this frequently—on its unspontaneity” (pp. 165-66).

Dan

 

[quantum_star22]

I tried to show that it isn’t, because the Mass is more a matter of expressed theology, which is rooted in Church doctrine and dogma. So the language and wording become very important as well.

I agree. Something that a lot of folks forget is LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI. In other words, the law of praying determines the law of believing. Otherwise, we wind up with protestantism.