Will Pope Benedict reform the liturgy?

[theMutant]

HagiaSophia:

What I never see mentioned in threads such as this one is that the pope does not operate in a vacuum. He was elected with the clear understanding that he would consult with and listen to his bishops. As does every modern pope. The days of the “imperial” papacy are over.

The days of the “imperial papacy” refer to the days when the Pope was a temporal ruler over countires. Check the Vatican II documents as well as the current Catechism. The pope governs the entire Catholic Church with absolute authority. While he will certainly consult with bishops before making universal changes, or even changes to the entire Latin Church, he is under no obligation to do so. At the same time that bishops are ordained to authority over their individual dioceses, the pope is the head of the entire Church.

HagiaSophia:

The pope has to be guided heavily by the recommendations from these national councils so what is done or undone at these meetings is critical in his decision making or implementation.

While I agree with much of what you posted, the pope does not have to be guided by the national councils. He could simply change canon law and dissolve them tomorrow if he so chose.

HagiaSophia:

As the pope pointed out to us at the funeral of JPII we grow impatient, we want change now, when in fact what we are experiencing is God’s patience with mankind.

So true. As a cardinal, he wrote and spoke about things that have gone wrong with the implementation of the liturgy. That does not mean, however, that as pope he’s just going to rip apart that to which nearly all Catholics have become accustomed over the last 30 years of liturgical upheaval. This is not a time for us traditionalists to “give it to them like they gave it to us.” I agree with other posters that the first thing that will happen is greater enforcement from Rome concerning abuses. We already saw some of this during the end of JPII’s reign with further explanations of what constitutes abuses and the requirement that new translations be faithful to the Latin. Just wait until the average Catholic in the pew has to adjust the responses they’ve said for the last 30 years! The term “pastoral” has become unfashionable among traditionalists but, in fact, being pastoral is an essential part of the Church’s tradition.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

palmas85:

As I understand it, the Holy Father, must state that he is speaking ex cathedra, as the head of the Church and speaking to the whole church on a matter of Faith or Morals. As to whether or not we could be certain of it’s validity, I can only say that such pronouncements have been extremely rare.

Not true. The best example is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Responsum ad Dubium which states it belongs to the “deposit of faith” and requires assent. Some argued that he needed to make some kind of proclamation that it was ex cathedra, which is only a wishful myth. From New Advent on Infallibility:

What is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under *(“http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#I”)).

The infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.

Infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).

Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

 

[palmas85]

Lux_et_veritas:

Not true. The best example is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Responsum ad Dubium which states it belongs to the “deposit of faith” and requires assent. Some argued that he needed to make some kind of proclamation that it was ex cathedra, which is only a wishful myth. From New Advent on Infallibility:

What is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under *(“http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#I”)).

The infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.

Infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).

Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

So the Holy Father does not need to clearly state that he is so speaking?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

palmas85:

As I understand it, the Holy Father, must state that he is speaking ex cathedra, as the head of the Church and speaking to the whole church on a matter of Faith or Morals. As to whether or not we could be certain of it’s validity, I can only say that such pronouncements have been extremely rare.

Yes, but I wasn’t referring to ex cathedra pronouncements. Let me put this very directly. Are faithful Catholics bound to believe that the liturgical changes mandated by the Church since 1965 were inspired by the Holy Spirit? I understand that we must assent to those changes, whether we agree with them or not. But must we believe it was the work of the Holy Spirit?

 

[bear06]

Dr. Bombay:

Yes, but I wasn’t referring to ex cathedra pronouncements. Let me put this very directly. Are faithful Catholics bound to believe that the liturgical changes mandated by the Church since 1965 were inspired by the Holy Spirit? I understand that we must assent to those changes, whether we agree with them or not. But must we believe it was the work of the Holy Spirit?

I think Dave just covered this on this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=88438

 

[Dr.Bombay]

bear06:

I think Dave just covered this on this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=88438

Indeed he did, but that thread and the links provided have done nothing but confuse me. I’m not concerned with disciplines being considered infallible, either negative and indirectly or positively and directly. This isn’t about claiming the Church has imposed something (Mass of Paul VI) that is “contradictory of her own teaching.” All faithful Catholics assent to that change, whether they agree with it or not. The Pope could mandate that neon orange vestments be worn on all feasts of the Blessed Mother. That contradicts nothing of dogma or doctrine. But would it be inspired by the Holy Spirit?

What I’m concerned with is whether disciplinary changes are inspired. No one has yet answered that question to my satisfaction. Can faithful Catholics question the prudence of the Holy Father in “reforming” the Mass, or was he guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[bear06]

Dr. Bombay:

What I’m concerned with is whether disciplinary changes are inspired. No one has yet answered that question to my satisfaction. Can faithful Catholics question the prudence of the Holy Father in “reforming” the Mass, or was he guided by the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm…a challenging thought. Let’s see. In the same article on Ecclesiatical Disciplines it says:

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law; the most remarkable instance of this being the suppression of the chalice in the Communion of the laity.

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

If disciplinary infalliblilty of the Church is an indirect consequence of doctrinal infalliblity, wouldn’t it have to be guarded (I guess not necessarily inspired) by the Holy Spirit?

 

[palmas85]

Dr. Bombay:

Indeed he did, but that thread and the links provided have done nothing but confuse me. I’m not concerned with disciplines being considered infallible, either negative and indirectly or positively and directly. This isn’t about claiming the Church has imposed something (Mass of Paul VI) that is “contradictory of her own teaching.” All faithful Catholics assent to that change, whether they agree with it or not. The Pope could mandate that neon orange vestments be worn on all feasts of the Blessed Mother. That contradicts nothing of dogma or doctrine. But would it be inspired by the Holy Spirit?

What I’m concerned with is whether disciplinary changes are inspired. No one has yet answered that question to my satisfaction. Can faithful Catholics question the prudence of the Holy Father in “reforming” the Mass, or was he guided by the Holy Spirit?

I would think that only announcements by the Holy Father made ex-cathedra, could definitely be considered as being guided by the Holy Spirit, as well as those statements made which directly impact upon the deposit of the faith. Anything else, I imagine would be fair game, and guided by man, not the Holy Spirit… I think that would include all disciplinary changes, and most other things relating to the outward trappings of the Institutional Church as a whole…

And yes, I think that all Catholics have not only the right but the duty to bring such things up if they feel that they adversely impact the faith.

 

[Orionthehunter]

palmas85:

I would think that only announcements by the Holy Father made ex-cathedra, could definitely be considered as being guided by the Holy Spirit, as well as those statements made which directly impact upon the deposit of the faith. Anything else, I imagine would be fair game, and guided by man, not the Holy Spirit… I think that would include all disciplinary changes, and most other things relating to the outward trappings of the Institutional Church as a whole…

And yes, I think that all Catholics have not only the right but the duty to bring such things up if they feel that they adversely impact the faith.

I think that unless we know they are contrary to the Deposit of Faith, we should defer to the judgment of the Holy Father and our ecclesiastical authorities. The primary problem we have in the Church is that a certain segment of Catholics took the post-V2 approach that if it isn’t prohibited or said ex cathedra, it is allowed and we are allowed. I don’t think that the Church is served well by this attitude (it seems so Protestant as they now have over 40,000 different denominations) especially if is adopted with those who long and advocate for a return of the “old days.”

The solution of the problem is that we pray for the Holy Spirit to guide the Pope and the ecclesiastical authorities in all their decisions, accept and assent to their legitimate instruction, and support them in their efforts to correct the misinterpretations that came from V2. The last thing we need is another group w/ an agenda or otherwise questioning every move that the ecclesiastical authorities make or don’t make.

 

[Agricola]

Dear all,

To get back to the original topic of the post…

Yes, I believe that a certain amount of liturgical reformation will occur. However, it is not likely that Pope Benedict XVI will take everything on at once.

He has already made declarations concerning abuses in the liturgy. These abuses are not things sanctioned by the Church, and so require no reformation… merely clarification. The allowances that the Vatican made for regional variation in practice have also been a subject for contemplation by our Holy Father. But these are a different matter.

Personally, I hope that our Holy Father reforms NO a great deal, and gives it some of the universality of the TLM. I believe that any Catholic should be able to travel to another part of the globe and be able to participate in the Mass in the same way as at home. That was the intention of PPV in Quo Primum was it not… to have the Universality of the Church mirrored in the universality of the liturgy? In any case, I will gladly accept any changes that the Holy Father approves of.

God bless,

Agricola

 

[thistle]

Agricola:

Dear all,

To get back to the original topic of the post…

Yes, I believe that a certain amount of liturgical reformation will occur. However, it is not likely that Pope Benedict XVI will take everything on at once.

He has already made declarations concerning abuses in the liturgy. These abuses are not things sanctioned by the Church, and so require no reformation… merely clarification. The allowances that the Vatican made for regional variation in practice have also been a subject for contemplation by our Holy Father. But these are a different matter.

Personally, I hope that our Holy Father reforms NO a great deal, and gives it some of the universality of the TLM. **I believe that any Catholic should be able to travel to another part of the globe and be able to participate in the Mass in the same way as at ** home. That was the intention of PPV in Quo Primum was it not… to have the Universality of the Church mirrored in the universality of the liturgy? In any case, I will gladly accept any changes that the Holy Father approves of.

God bless,

Agricola

I have attended Mass in many different countries in Europe and Asia and they are all the NO Mass and the same in each country apart from the local language being used so I’m not sure what your comment is based on.

 

[Agricola]

thistle:

I have attended Mass in many different countries in Europe and Asia and they are all the NO Mass and the same in each country apart from the local language being used so I’m not sure what your comment is based on.

Dear Thistle,

What do you mean by “the same”? I can go to two parishes just within my diocese and witness two very different liturgies… sometimes drastically different. These differences did not come about due to culture or language or relative affluence, and so vary for some other reason. Infer what you will.

My comment is based on my experience with the TLM, the NO, and the documents of the Church that pertain to them. Read Quo Primum to get an idea of why I would refer to the universality of the TLM.

Also, I would like to point out that I was not attacking the NO Mass at all. The NO Mass is valid, and beautiful. However, there are some things in it that the Holy Father has written about that could, and possibly should, be changed in order to better serve the purpose of the liturgy. Spirit of the Liturgy is a wonderful book if you haven’t read it already.

God bless,

Agricola

God bless,

 

[thistle]

Agricola:

Dear Thistle,

What do you mean by “the same”? I can go to two parishes just within my diocese and witness two very different liturgies… sometimes drastically different. These differences did not come about due to culture or language or relative affluence, and so vary for some other reason. Infer what you will.

My comment is based on my experience with the TLM, the NO, and the documents of the Church that pertain to them. Read Quo Primum to get an idea of why I would refer to the universality of the TLM.

Also, I would like to point out that I was not attacking the NO Mass at all. The NO Mass is valid, and beautiful. However, there are some things in it that the Holy Father has written about that could, and possibly should, be changed in order to better serve the purpose of the liturgy. Spirit of the Liturgy is a wonderful book if you haven’t read it already.

God bless,

Agricola

God bless,

I think maybe we are miscommunicating, probably my fault. When you mentioned that a Catholic should be able to go anywhere and participate in the Mass as if at home I was only trying to point out that every country in Europe and Asia that I have attended Mass it has been the same liturgy. The only difference I noticed was the language. What I am saying is that in all my travels I do participate in a Mass as if at home.

 

[SummaTheo]

Dr. Bombay:

Indeed he did, but that thread and the links provided have done nothing but confuse me. I’m not concerned with disciplines being considered infallible, either negative and indirectly or positively and directly. This isn’t about claiming the Church has imposed something (Mass of Paul VI) that is “contradictory of her own teaching.” All faithful Catholics assent to that change, whether they agree with it or not. The Pope could mandate that neon orange vestments be worn on all feasts of the Blessed Mother. That contradicts nothing of dogma or doctrine. But would it be inspired by the Holy Spirit?

What I’m concerned with is whether disciplinary changes are inspired. No one has yet answered that question to my satisfaction. Can faithful Catholics question the prudence of the Holy Father in “reforming” the Mass, or was he guided by the Holy Spirit?

I would think not. I’m not going to get into the liturgy changes from post VII but another discipline change. The abstinence of meat on Fridays. We have a choice now whether to not eat meat or offer another sacrifice, but I think it is much better if the whole Church offers the same type of penance to Christ on Fridays when we recall His Passion and Death. This is an outward sign of our Cathlocity.

 

[Orionthehunter]

SummaTheo:

I would think not. I’m not going to get into the liturgy changes from post VII but another discipline change. The abstinence of meat on Fridays. We have a choice now whether to not eat meat or offer another sacrifice, but I think it is much better if the whole Church offers the same type of penance to Christ on Fridays when we recall His Passion and Death. This is an outward sign of our Cathlocity.

I totally agree. As I think we should be focusing on opportunities for corporal works for mercy 24-7, the current practice seems to suggest (to me anyhow) that it is Fridays when this should happen. Additionally, if we re-adopted the past practice, there would be greater unity (IMHO always a good thing) and an outward sign of our Catholicity as you mention.

And, to this space cadet, I’d find myself forgetting and inadvertently eating meat when that was my intention.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

bear06:

Hmmm…a challenging thought. Let’s see. In the same article on Ecclesiatical Disciplines it says:

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

If disciplinary infalliblilty of the Church is an indirect consequence of doctrinal infalliblity, wouldn’t it have to be guarded (I guess not necessarily inspired) by the Holy Spirit?

Correct. But the point I’m making has nothing to do, really, with infallability. I’m not talking about faith or morals.

I concur that the Holy Spirit protects the Church and the Supreme Pontiff from introducing disciplinary changes that are contrary to dogma or doctrine. But the Holy Spirit, unless I’m missing something, does not protect the Pope from his own human stupidity. If the Pope wants to alter a discipline, as long as it doesn’t endanger the Deposit of Faith, the Holy Spirit allows him to do so, even if it’s not a decision that God necessarily wants. Or that’s how I see it.

And this is very much on topic, considering any “reform of the reform” will be yet another example of the Pope exercising his power to alter a discipline.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Dr. Bombay:

Correct. But the point I’m making has nothing to do, really, with infallability. I’m not talking about faith or morals.

I concur that the Holy Spirit protects the Church and the Supreme Pontiff from introducing disciplinary changes that are contrary to dogma or doctrine. But the Holy Spirit, unless I’m missing something, does not protect the Pope from his own human stupidity. If the Pope wants to alter a discipline, as long as it doesn’t endanger the Deposit of Faith, the Holy Spirit allows him to do so, even if it’s not a decision that God necessarily wants. Or that’s how I see it.

And this is very much on topic, considering any “reform of the reform” will be yet another example of the Pope exercising his power to alter a discipline.

I’m also of the opinion that we do not need to attribute every action of the pope to the Holy Spirit. The Spirit protects against imposing disciplines that are contrary to faith and morals, i.e. that are objectively wrong. There is no belief that the Spirit ensures that our popes will always make the BEST decision possible.

 

[the_phoenix]

thistle:

In short most Catholics in the world don’t even think about the TLM. In general (but not only) the ones who want that back are older folks and mostly American, but even there I believe its only a small minority.

Dear thistle,

Nice to meet you. * smiles good greetings *

Your small minority has just gotten one person larger. I’m a middle-aged American who LOVES the indult Latin Mass. Of course whether the Mass is conducted in English or Latin, it’s the same Truly Present Jesus Christ we receive in the Holy Eucharist. That said, I just personally find the Latin Mass far more beautiful, majestic, spiritual, satisfying, deep, rich, magnificent, praise-laden, and drawing me closer into the Loving Presence of God !!!

~~ the phoenix

 

[bear06]

Dr. Bombay:

Correct. But the point I’m making has nothing to do, really, with infallability. I’m not talking about faith or morals.

I concur that the Holy Spirit protects the Church and the Supreme Pontiff from introducing disciplinary changes that are contrary to dogma or doctrine. But the Holy Spirit, unless I’m missing something, does not protect the Pope from his own human stupidity. If the Pope wants to alter a discipline, as long as it doesn’t endanger the Deposit of Faith, the Holy Spirit allows him to do so, even if it’s not a decision that God necessarily wants. Or that’s how I see it.

And this is very much on topic, considering any “reform of the reform” will be yet another example of the Pope exercising his power to alter a discipline.

Well then, would you think that it would be correct to say that Pope is sometimes inspired by the Holy Spirit in matters of discipline? I’m guessing the answer would be yes. With that in mind, how are we to know when this is if we are not specifically told by the Pope. I guess what I am asking is does it really matter? If you look at Pastor Aeternus, it shows that we are supposed to obey *and * *submit * to the pope in matters of faith and morals as well as disciplines. Of course you know this. It doesn’t say obey and submit if you think he’s inspired by the Holy Spirit or do not follow if you think he’s not. It doesn’t even say don’t submit if we don’t think it’s in the best interest of hte Church.

 

[mcliffor]

I get the feeling from things I’ve read that he had written as cardinal that he realizes it’s easier to undo traditions than it is to rebuild them. Priest turned around the altars and destroyed sanctuaries over night, but that was because they wanted to. There’s no cultural impetus to return to tradition, and too many people would resist it. The only way I think we could have a lating mass in this world is if the Novus Ordo had never replaced the traditional mass in the first place. Reinstituting it overnight is too simple a solution. I think it will that centuried to undo the damage some of Paul VI’s reforms have done to the Church.