The Authority to Change a Liturgical Rite

[AlexV]

From a historical point of view, it’s very simple.

Comparing what Pius V did, and every pope after him until John XXIII inclusive, to what Paul VI did is laughable.

It’s simply untenable from a historical point of view.

Yet, in part because of lousy educations in some circles, there are even clergy who think Pius V created his own Missal in 1570, just like Paul VI in 1970.

Simply not true.

What Paul did was indeed unprecedented in liturgical history. Then again, unlike Pius - a Dominican who had his own rite, and yet sought to preserve the authentic Roman Rite…Paul - an Ambrosian - was willing to say goodbye to 1500 years of organic development.

History will, I suspect, judge him harshly.

 

[jbuck919]

I guess that begs the question: What is essential? By essential I don’t mean what makes the sacrament valid, but what is essential to Catholic worship? Anything of Apostolic origin is authoritative and certain prayers (prayers at the foot of the altar) and behaviors (ad orientem) were always present in the Church’s liturgy and may be of Apostolic origin.

Huh? We know no such thing. In fact the prayers at the foot of the altar started as a priest’s own devotions in the sacristy and only got attached to the beginning of the mass later. And we have no idea how the celebrant and priest were oriented in apostolic times, except possibly to guess that they were reclining around a triclinium as they all had been at the Last Supper.

 

[AlexV]

Archaeologists who excavate shelf altars and have found them all facing East in catacombs would beg to differ.

 

[arieh0310]

Huh? We know no such thing. In fact the prayers at the foot of the altar started as a priest’s own devotions in the sacristy and only got attached to the beginning of the mass later.

They were actually the priest’s private devotion and admission of personal sin while approaching the altar (hence the name). The form may have changed and made more formal, but they were there.

 

[AJV]

They were actually the priest’s private devotion and admission of personal sin while approaching the altar (hence the name). The form may have changed and made more formal, but they were there.

arieh0310, both you and jsbuck are right. The prayers were said in the sacristy in some places, and in others when approaching the altar.

 

[AlexV]

It’s very simple, really.

Everything published from 1570 to 1970 looks like editions of the same thing.

1970, suddenly, it looks radically different.

At least in 1970 they had the honesty to stop printing the old papal bulls from 1570 on up…that would have been amusing, had they kept them.

And, the first printed Missal that has survived COMPLETE…1474…looks virtually identical to 1570. So for at least 500 odd years, we had virtually the same Missal.

One wonders why in 1970 that had to change so dramatically…

 

[jbuck919]

Maybe I’m being too picky. There is already a difference between true apostolic times and early post-apostolic times. If someone finds one of those “table altars” that dates to 50 CE, let me know and I’ll stand corrected.

What I do believe about apostolic times was that they already had the sacrament, which was instituted by our Lord, in form, matter, and intent, because we know that directly from St. Paul, and Jesus said specifically, “do this in remembrane of me.” Actually, what he said was, “whenever you do this, do it in remembrance of me,” but it is clear from St. Paul that the Mass was special from the get-go.

I think that ultimately as the Church continues to examine and perhaps make modifications to the liturgy, we have to trust in its fundamental guidance by the Holy Spirit. Most people who care at all are troubled by some aspect of any rite, which means that in human terms the Mass, outside its essence, is a compromise. What I find difficult is people who say it’s perfect the way it is, don’t mess with it, leave it alone. That to me is just frustration with change.

 

[AlexV]

It’s really very simple.

By 1570, the liturgy had reached a state of clearly traceable, organic development that stretched back to the Last Supper.

Between 1570 and 1970, nothing happened to that liturgy that made it unrecognizable from what it was before.

Suddenly, in 1970, a new creation emerged and was imposed on almost everyone in the West with almost no exception.

Mercifully, despite the very high-handed efforts of some, the Church’s classical liturgy has had a way of living on…and on…

 

[CantorRick]

It’s very simple, really.

Everything published from 1570 to 1970 looks like editions of the same thing.

1970, suddenly, it looks radically different.

At least in 1970 they had the honesty to stop printing the old papal bulls from 1570 on up…that would have been amusing, had they kept them.

And, the first printed Missal that has survived COMPLETE…1474…looks virtually identical to 1570. So for at least 500 odd years, we had virtually the same Missal.

One wonders why in 1970 that had to change so dramatically…

Because YOU, my friend, were not participating any longer. You left it up to someone else to celebrate the Mass and tuned in to your own private “devotional of the mass.”

Richard

 

[AlexV]

A funny and ironic post from someone who makes much of not “judging”.

 

[CantorRick]

A funny and ironic post from someone who makes much of not “judging”.

I’ll get back to you on this. Has to do with the rational for updating the Liturgy and little or nothing to do with judgment. Irony aside, I still do not judge, I observe I compare, I offer insight based on experience and research and I lift up my soul, and those with whom I come in contact with (including those here present) to our everloving God.

Richard

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

No pope has the authority, for example, to say that a Roman Rite priest may not use the Roman Canon…which is of APOSTOLIC origin.

If he does not have the authority to keep a Latin priest from using the Roman Canon, why is it that he has the authority to keep a Latin priest from using the canon of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Liturgy of St. Basil, Liturgy of St. James, Liturgy of St. Mark, Liturgy of Ss. Addai and Mari, etc.? These are all of just as “apostolic” origins as the Roman Canon. So I suppose by your reasoning any Catholic priest is allowed to celebrate Mass according to any liturgical books with roots going back just as far as the Roman Canon, since the pope can’t forbid apostolic liturgies (or are we confining this to anaphorae?). Then again, I’m guessing you actually would agree with our centuries of tradition that the pope can legislate against Latins freely using the rites of other churches, which means you’re in need of a new justification.

Let’s break things down.

1. Is the pope supreme legislator, executor, and adjudicator in the Catholic Church? - Quibbles as to whether those are official titles aside, I think orthodoxy demands agreement.
2. Is the liturgy a legitimate locus of papal legislation; in other words, does it fall within his jurisdiction as opposed to matters such as the color of car driven by Catholics? - I think you’ve already agreed with this point by defending the myriad (in many cases, admittedly minute/inconsequential) liturgical changes mandated by popes from Pius V to Pius XII. I haven’t yet seen you defend John XXIII’s addition to the Roman canon, but I also haven’t seen you attack it - although I don’t see why you haven’t. I myself take umbrage at a pope deciding to tinker with a piece of the liturgy that had remained inviolate for a millenium. Your constant argument has been that popes are able to legislate changes to the liturgy but they have all been, if you’ll agree to the term, superficial.

The question of the poll, then, seems settled. Can and may a pope “change the liturgy.” Undoubtedly yes. But that is not really the issue at hand because the debate centers on how far-reaching the Supreme Pontiff’s liturgical authority is.

cont…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

1. Can a pope create a new rite? - Many argue no. But given the answers to 1 and 2, it seems there must be a special argument to establish this. I can see an argument proceeding from the standpoint that all our liturgies are ultimately of apostolic origin and, just as the pope cannot create a new sacrament, the Church cannot create a new rite out of whole cloth - she can only preserve and develop that which she has received.

Yet despite the fact that liturgy goes all the way back to the Apostles the New Testament period was one of fluidity and extemporaneity. The Apostles may have passed on ways of presiding over the Eucharist, but they passed on no texts of which we are aware. Even once texts begin to appear we can see that the Pian missal does not respect the “apostolic” order of liturgy in, for instance, its placing of the pax which in ancient liturgies always precedes the start of the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The recitation of a creed is also not found in the earliest liturgies. Processions were not part of largely secret and domestic liturgy. Basically, if we take the elements of the 1570 missal we will see that next to nothing before the opening collect is particularly ancient - very old sometimes, sure, but pre-Nicene? no. We’ve got a long string of addition to the liturgy, but with those additions, in the early days, came subtractions. Baumstark’s laws of liturgical development tell us that as more practices were added to the liturgy, the older ones were generally either shortened or eliminated. The main point of all that info is that we’re running into the old philosophical problem of identity throughout time. If so many elements are not original, does it matter qualitatively whether they were added slowly or all at once?

The Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI, for all of what I would consider its faults, recombined all sorts of pre-existing liturgical elements into a new rite, but it did not invent new elements in any way qualitatively different than the original composition of the various anaphorae still in use - none are verbatim handings-on of Apostolic dicta. Collects are ancient. Responsorial psalmody is ancient. Lessons are ancient. Homilies are ancient. Offertories are old. Canons are ancient. The Sanctus is ancient. The Agnus Dei and fraction are old news. Even Communion in the hand, of which I’m not a fan at all, is ancient. So if the pope legitimately legislates the liturgy, and he organizes pre-existing liturgical elements with some old, some newly composed texts (propers get re-written or newly written all the time), how has he exceeded an authority already granted to him? As distasteful as it is for a pope to exercise such brute force and obliterate our traditional way of celebrating liturgy, what specific element can we point to that can annul his supreme authority over matters liturgical?

 

[AlexV]

Roman priests use Roman Canons. Not Eastern.

That’s important to remember.

As for John XXIII, there’s interesting folklore about what happened when Gregory I tried to tinker with the Roman Canon.

John at least left it intact. He added a phrase. I consider that regrettable and unnecessary. But at least he didn’t subtract or make optional a single word.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Roman priests use Roman Canons. Not Eastern.

That’s important to remember.

As for John XXIII, there’s interesting folklore about what happened when Gregory I tried to tinker with the Roman Canon.

John at least left it intact. He added a phrase. I consider that regrettable and unnecessary. But at least he didn’t subtract or make optional a single word.

So the pope can forbid Latins the use of canons of Apostolic origins. Thank you. I agree that it just makes sense to make Latins (who are not all Romans) use the Roman canon, but I hope you’ll also agree of the need to reformulate your argument based on apostolicity.

 

[AlexV]

I don’t need to reformulate anything.

I asked a simple question: if a pope ordered you to stop using the Roman Canon, would you?

The answer is that a pope can’t ban the use of the Roman Canon.

Obviously, the context of the question is the Roman Rite.

 

[AJV]

Roman priests use Roman Canons. Not Eastern.

That’s important to remember.

As for John XXIII, there’s interesting folklore about what happened when Gregory I tried to tinker with the Roman Canon.

John at least left it intact. He added a phrase. I consider that regrettable and unnecessary. But at least he didn’t subtract or make optional a single word.

Yes, and pious belief does not equal to the truth.

Since a lot of the argument seems to hinge around the “apostolic” Canon I would like to know: what do you mean when you say the Canon has “Apostolic origins”?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The answer is that a pope can’t ban the use of the Roman Canon.

Why not? Other than your own authority you haven’t given any reason why the supreme legislator of the Church cannot ban the Roman Canon. Trying to discuss matters with you is going to get old very quickly if after I go to the trouble of trying to present some reasoning you simply fall back on your assertion.

Let’s recap what we’ve said so far.

Alex: The pope can’t ban the Roman Canon because it is of Apostolic origin.

Andreas: But don’t you agree the pope can ban priests from using anaphorae of Apostolic origin (once again according to whatever odd way we’re employing “Apostolic”)?

Alex: Yes, the pope can ban anaphorae of Apostolic origin.

Andreas: So you shouldn’t be claiming that the reason the pope can’t ban the Roman Canon is that it is Apostolic. You should reformulate that.

Alex: I don’t need to reformulate anything. The pope can’t ban the Roman Canon.

So you admitted that your 1 reason you gave didn’t apply and in the same breath seem to have said that it did. Odd.

 

[AlexV]

The pope can’t ban Eastern anaphorae.

It’s just that - shockingly! - only Easterners can use them.

Sheesh. It’s not brain surgery.

 

[AJV]

What is meant by the Canon being “Apostolic” or having “Apostolic origins”? Delivered verbatim by the apostles? Inspired by them? Contianing phrases they used (which ones)?

And what prevents a Roman priest from using an Eastern Anaphora aside from the fact that the Roman Canon has been in use (with most of its parts) from the 6th century and is the tradition of the Rome rite? The ancient Roman rite was fused with Gallician forms that are Eastern in so many ways (not least in their verbose nature ) The Canon itself was rearranged at one point to model one Eastern liturgy rather than another. Surely if one wants to be ‘purely Roman’ we could start removing a lot of stuff from the TLM.