Would you like to see a phasing out of the Novus Ordo Missae leading to a return to only the TLM?

[saint_rafael]

No no, I was merely stating that within the limits of Papal Infallibility defined in the First Vatican Council the Pope is still a 100% fallible person. The Pope can teach Infallibly, however it needs to be noticed that Ex Cathedra doesn’t equal Infallibility. Ex Cathedra means from the Chair. So that would mean the Pope makes an Ex Cathedra statement showing him teaching from the Chair of St. Peter, so he is teaching to the entire Church. If he proclaims something heretical in the form of an Ex Cathedra statement than it is null and not Infallible.

You are dead wrong.
Ex-Cathdra and Papal Infallibility is the same thing. When a Pope speaks Ex-Cathdera or from the chair of Peter he is infallible. Vatican I said that Papal Infallibility is used when a Pope speaks Ex-Cathdra. Papal Infallibility is only exrecised Ex-Cathedra.

Ex Cathdedra (Chair of Peter) = Papal Infallibility.

To deny that Ex-Cathdera statements are not inallible and can contain error or heresy is to deny the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

How can a Pope be infallible when you say that speaking from the Chair (Ex-Cathedra) is not infallible?

 

[Aragorn1]

If it were true that another pope or council could set aside the solemn decrees of a former pope or council, there would be no Apostolic authority in the Church, and we could not believe Christ’s promise to be with the Church “all days” until the end of time. Any pope or council that attempts to set aside the authoritative teachings of a previous pope or council is acting in defiance and disobedience to the authority of the Church.

Nonsense. The Popes and councils are only infallible in areas of faith and morals (you traditionalists who lay that “pastoral council” stuff on Vatican II ought to grasp this). The fact is that pastoral directives and even solemn decrees proclaimed non-infallibly have been set aside and even directly overturned by later Popes. No one said there was no Apostolic Authority in the Church when Pius X revised the Roman Breviary in Divino Afflatu, despite the wording of Pius V’s Quod a Vobix:

"Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

Pretty strong language, huh? Yet it’s almost the same as is found in Quo Primum, quoted by yourself in a recent post. Fact is, this was just a conventional legal formula in papal documents.

For several more examples of how “in perpetuity” is not to be taken in the strict literal sense of “no future Pope may ever change this”, you might want to check this out.

“We need once again to take into account that these various Conciliar regulations [of the dogmatic Council of Trent on the Mass, Chapter XXII] do not only have a disciplinary character. They are based on a doctrinal, theological
foundation that involves the Faith itself.” (Alfons Cardinal Sticker, May 1999)

Oh, so now it becomes OK to quote Cardinal Stickler? Only when it suits your case, I suppose.

I reproduce below what I posted previously:

We have no official prohibition [of the EF] and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition, not because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever. Those words of Pius V were common for an important decision of the Pope. He always said, “This is valid forever.” But this was not a theological, it was not a dogmatic statement, this decree of the Pope promulgating his Tridentine Mass order. And so it could be changed by his successors…
In Italian, they say that one pope gives the bull and another takes the bull again, that is, he can change the disposition of his predecessor…

Cardinal Stickler, interview with “Latin Mass Magazine” on the Tridentine Mass (Summer 1995 Issue).

Can you give me a good reason (other than a citation from Ottaviani Intervention or Fr. Kramer) why one of these quotes from a traditionalist Cardinal is applicable and representative of the teaching of the Church, and the other is not?

 

[holdencaulfield]

Ok my point is that a Pope cannot say something Infallible that is heresy. If a Pope makes a statement that is heresy it cannot be Infallible even if he makes it in the form of an Ex Cathedra statement. So I mean lets say he teaches heresy to the entire Church and it meets the requirements of an Ex Cathedra statement other than it being heresy. It is not Infallible.

My point is that a Pope cannot make a statement that is heresy Infallible just because of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

 

[AJV]

The clear signification of the words in this solemn declaration leave no room for any positive doubt about what is meant. …
.(snip) Quo Primum is of
itself irreformable.

Pope Pius V also added a most ususual clause and most grave imprecation in Quo Primum:
**
“shall incur the wrath of Almighty God and of
the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul”**

The infallible document is an extremely grave matter that all Popes after Quo Primum understood because of the warning clause inserted.

This is not true. You can look through a lot of Papal documents and books on the style of writing of the Papal Chancery and you will see that these phrases are adopted in many documents. (There is one book online here)

I cannot understand why Fr. Kranmer would consider the “the wrath of Almighty God, etc.” an unusual clause. “Nulli ergo hominem” and “Si quis autem” is extremely common in all manner of Papal documents.

Papal documents typically speak in such an extravagant style. When Pius XII declared the BVM the Principal Patroness of my (ecclesiastical) region, the letter contained such impressive statements as it ‘was always valid and binding, both now and n the future’ , ‘anything attempted against it, by whatsoever authority, is null and void’. It hardly means that if my bishop, in consultation with the clergy and CDW in Rome, decides to change the principal patroness, a future Pope cannot do it or mandate it be done.

As an example, see the Bull Quod a Nobis on the breviary.
In it St. Pius V declares:

Omni itaque alio usu quibuslibet, ut dictum est, interdicto, hoc Nostrum Breviarium, ac precandi psallendique formulam in omnibus universi orbis Ecclesiis, Monasteriis, Ordinibus, et locis etiam exemptis, in quibus Officium ex more et ritu dictae Romanae Ecclesiae dici debet, aut consuevit, salva praedicta institutione, vel consuetudine praedictos ducentos annos superante, praecipimus observari:

Statuentes Breviarium ipsum nullo umquam tempore vel totum, vel ex parte mutandum, vel ei aliquid addendum, vel omnino detrahendum esse;

ac quoscumque, qui Horas Canonicas ex more et ritu ipsius Romanae Ecclesiae, iure vel consuetudine dicere vel psallere debent, propositis poenis per Canonicas sanctiones constitutis in eos, qui divinum Officium quotidie non dixerint,

ad dicendum et psallendum posthac in perpetuum Horas ipsas diurnas et nocturnas, ex huius Romani Breviarii praescripto et ratione omnino teneri: neminemque ex iis, quibus hoc dicendi psallendique munus necessario impositum est, nisi hac sola formula satisfacere posse………

…Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginaem Nostrae ablationis, abolitionis, permissionis, revocationis, iussionis, praecepti, statuti, indulti, mandati, decreti, relaxationis, cohortationis, prohibitionis, innodationis, et voluntatis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum.

And all other use whatsoever, as was said, having been forbidden, We instruct this Our Breviary, and the formula of praying and singing the Psalms, to be observed in all the Churches, Monasteries, Orders, and places of the entire world even exempt, in which the Office must be said from the custom and rite of said Roman Church, or is accustomed to be, saving the aforesaid institution or custom of the aforesaid two hundred years survival:

At no time may this Breviary be changed whether in whole or in part, or anything whatsoever added, or altogether removed; and those establishing it impose penalties, through constituted Canonical sanctions, on whomever, who ought to say the Canonical Hours or sing the Psalms by the manner and rite of the same Roman Church, by law or custom, does not say the divine Office daily, prescribed from this Roman Breviary,

and whomever must say and sing the Psalms hereafter in perpetuity these diurnal and nocturnal Hours, must entirely keep it by this manner: no one among them, to whom the duty of saying and singing the Psalms is imposed, satisfies it except by this formula alone…………

Therefore it is permitted for no man at all to infringe, or to rashly oppose this notice of our removal, abolition, permission, revocation, command, precept, statute, indult, mandate, decree, relaxation, exhortation, prohibition, imposition, and will. And if anyone shall presume to attack this, let him know he will incur the anger of almighty God, and of blessed Peter and Paul His Apostles.

You can see the parallels yourself with Quo Primum. The last paragraph, Nulli ergo, etc. is virtually identical with that of Quod a Nobis- this was a standard formula.

Despite this decree, Popes altered the breviary and St. Pius X completely changed the order of reciting the psalms - essentially annuling Quod a Nobis by saying that anyone who adhered to the psalter of the previous breviary (i.e. St. Pius V’s) did not fulfil the obligation to recite the Canonical hours.

Fr. Kranmer argues that “perpetua valitura constitutione” is “precise and unequivocal meaning: namely, that the document cannot ever be revoked or modified”. But there are a multitude of other Papal bulls and minor documents where the expression “perpetua valitura constitutione” has been used but they have later been overturned. Anyone can go through (e.g.) a compendium of such documents and see it.Take the Sixtine Vulgate. Pope Sixtus’ constitution on the Vulgate uses the same words to command that his version be used “provera, legitima, authentica, et indubitata” yet, as you know, it only lasted until Clement VIII.

 

[Aragorn1]

I agree that Restoration is the only way. If many people leave the Church, then big deal that’s there own problem.

All I can say is THANK GOD we have Benedict as our Holy Father, and not yourself, with an attitude like that.

 

[Aragorn1]

This is not true. You can look through a lot of Papal documents and books on the style of writing of the Papal Chancery and you will see that these phrases are adopted in many documents. (There is one book online here)

I cannot understand why Fr. Kranmer would consider the “the wrath of Almighty God, etc.” an unusual clause. “Nulli ergo hominem” and “Si quis autem” is extremely common in all manner of Papal documents.

Papal documents typically speak in such an extravagant style. When Pius XII declared the BVM the Principal Patroness of my (ecclesiastical) region, the letter contained such impressive statements as it ‘was always valid and binding, both now and n the future’ , ‘anything attempted against it, by whatsoever authority, is null and void’. It hardly means that if my bishop, in consultation with the clergy and CDW in Rome, decides to change the principal patroness, a future Pope cannot do it or mandate it be done.

**As an example, see the Bull Quod a Nobis on the breviary.
In it St. Pius V declares:

Omni itaque alio usu quibuslibet, ut dictum est, interdicto, hoc Nostrum Breviarium, ac precandi psallendique formulam in omnibus universi orbis Ecclesiis, Monasteriis, Ordinibus, et locis etiam exemptis, in quibus Officium ex more et ritu dictae Romanae Ecclesiae dici debet, aut consuevit, salva praedicta institutione, vel consuetudine praedictos ducentos annos superante, praecipimus observari:

Statuentes Breviarium ipsum nullo umquam tempore vel totum, vel ex parte mutandum, vel ei aliquid addendum, vel omnino detrahendum esse;

ac quoscumque, qui Horas Canonicas ex more et ritu ipsius Romanae Ecclesiae, iure vel consuetudine dicere vel psallere debent, propositis poenis per Canonicas sanctiones constitutis in eos, qui divinum Officium quotidie non dixerint,

ad dicendum et psallendum posthac in perpetuum Horas ipsas diurnas et nocturnas, ex huius Romani Breviarii praescripto et ratione omnino teneri: neminemque ex iis, quibus hoc dicendi psallendique munus necessario impositum est, nisi hac sola formula satisfacere posse………

…Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginaem Nostrae ablationis, abolitionis, permissionis, revocationis, iussionis, praecepti, statuti, indulti, mandati, decreti, relaxationis, cohortationis, prohibitionis, innodationis, et voluntatis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum.

You can see the parallels yourself with Quo Primum. The last paragraph, Nulli ergo, etc. is virtually identical with that of Quod a Nobis- this was a standard formula.

Despite this decree, Popes altered the breviary and St. Pius X completely changed the order of reciting the psalms - essentially annuling Quod a Nobis by saying that anyone who adhered to the psalter of the previous breviary (i.e. St. Pius V’s) did not fulfil the obligation to recite the Canonical hours. **
Fr. Kranmer argues that “perpetua valitura constitutione” is “precise and unequivocal meaning: namely, that the document cannot ever be revoked or modified”. But there are a multitude of other Papal bulls and minor documents where the expression “perpetua valitura constitutione” has been used but they have later been overturned. Anyone can go through (e.g.) a compendium of such documents and see it.Take the Sixtine Vulgate. Pope Sixtus’ constitution on the Vulgate uses the same words to command that his version be used “provera, legitima, authentica, et indubitata” yet, as you know, it only lasted until Clement VIII.

Great minds think alike!

 

[saint_rafael]

Ok my point is that a Pope cannot say something Infallible that is heresy. If a Pope makes a statement that is heresy it cannot be Infallible even if he makes it in the form of an Ex Cathedra statement. So I mean lets say he teaches heresy to the entire Church and it meets the requirements of an Ex Cathedra statement other than it being heresy. It is not Infallible.

My point is that a Pope cannot make a statement that is heresy Infallible just because of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

Vatican I Dogmatic Consitution on the Church Chapter 4

1. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,** he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable**.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Holden,

According Vatican I, it is physically and supernaturally **Impossible **for a Pope to teach heresy when speaking Ex-Cathedra.
It is impossible. God will never allow it. He would be prevented physically or through death.

 

[Aragorn1]

I don’t know how this side-issue arose, but I just thought I’d comment on this real quick:

Ok my point is that a Pope cannot say something Infallible that is heresy. If a Pope makes a statement that is heresy it cannot be Infallible even if he makes it in the form of an Ex Cathedra statement. So I mean lets say he teaches heresy to the entire Church and it meets the requirements of an Ex Cathedra statement other than it being heresy. It is not Infallible.

My point is that a Pope cannot make a statement that is heresy Infallible just because of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

The problem with your definition is that it makes the dogma of papal infallibility practically useless. The dogma would be by definition non-falsifiable, and consequently pointless. What is the point of saying the Pope is infallible, when whenever he speaks heresy Ex Cathedra some third party intervenes and reassures everyone that the document could never have been infallible to begin with precisely for that reason! This is a lot like the fundamentalists, who argue that someone who has been living a sinful life was never really “saved” to begin with, his “religious experience” notwithstanding.

Also, by your definition how can anyone tell, with even a moral certainty, the difference between what is truly infallible and what is heresy? Appealing to past teachings won’t work, as they might be heretical too! Your definition of Ex Cathedra is fertile breeding ground for private interpretation and private judgment, which lead to factions and splinterings ad infinitum as we’ve seen since 1517.

No: the true doctrine is not that whenever the Pope teaches heresy Ex Cathedra the document is null and void, but rather that the Pope CANNOT teach heresy Ex Cathedra to begin with. Period. It’s impossible, it can never happen. Never has, never will.

 

[holdencaulfield]

All I can say is THANK GOD we have Benedict as our Holy Father, and not yourself, with an attitude like that.

I agree that I wouldn’t want to be Pope, however Pope Paul VI randomly decided to make the Novus Ordo everywhere, why couldn’t Benedict XVI do the opposite?

 

[holdencaulfield]

I still think that if it did happen, it wouldn’t be Infallible. I’m just doing what ifs, however what if God let it happen. To see who had the real faith, examples being St. Job and St. Peter.

 

[Freshman88]

I agree that I wouldn’t want to be Pope, however Pope Paul VI randomly decided to make the Novus Ordo everywhere, why couldn’t Benedict XVI do the opposite?

I find it quite ironic that many will say it is impossible to return to the Classical rite and yet with their next breath they will proudly tell a traditionalist that the Vatican had every right to change the mass.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree that Restoration is the only way. If many people leave the Church, then big deal that’s there own problem.

Huh? I cannot possibly understand you correctly. It sounds as if you have no thirst for souls and no care for who is unnecessarily lost. Surely you cannot be so zealous for the Mass that you have become callous as to why the gift of the Mass was given to us in the first place?

Pope Benedict in his heart and mind knows the Novus Ordo was a rupture and break with tradition. Vatican II called for modest reforms in the Missal of John XXIII. Reforms that would still make the TLM, the TLM used since Trent.

There’s a rupture with the New Mass, so there’s two solutions:

1. Restoration.
   Repealing and phasing out the New Mass. Many traditionalists and I believe this is the only solution and would help end the crisis in the Church.

Pope Benedict’s preference:

1. the hermeneutic of continuity or “reform of the reform”
   Changing the New Mass so that it is similar to the TLM by externals and prayers in Latin, AD Orientem, altar rails, fixed altars, etc. The Pope thinks he can fix the New Mass by making it into a hybrid of the N.O. and TLM. He thinks this will resore the liturgy to tradition.

a) Has the Holy Father specifically said or written somewhere that “the NO was a rupture and break with tradition”, or by “Pope Benedict in his heart and mind knows…” do you mean “I hope with all my heart that he thinks…”

I ask because “the difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits.…” doesn’t sound like the description of something that was so fundamentally unsound as you seem to suggest.

b) Has the Pope ever said that he hopes to reform the NO by definitively replacing some of its elements with elements from the TLM that you listed…not as an option or even the encouraged form, but as the singularly allowed rubrics? In other words, has he said that the GIRM has most certainly been slated for further reforms that will replace the elements that you don’t approve of?

I’m having a little trouble separating the facts concerning what our Holy Father has said from wishful thinking concerning changes that some still hope to see from his papacy.

It wasn’t my impression, either, that a more traditional candidate for the papacy than His Holiness was thought to have much chance at the enclave which elected him. The traditionalists were ecstatic when they got Benedict XVI, weren’t they? Is there a general expectation among traditionalists that the successor to Benedict XVI will be more traditional yet than the one formerly known as the “Panzer Cardinal”? Which cardinal or bishop do they have in mind?

 

[EasterJoy]

I find it quite ironic that many will say it is impossible to return to the Classical rite and yet with their next breath they will proudly tell a traditionalist that the Vatican had every right to change the mass.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t mean it is impossible in a theoretical sense. After all, I wasn’t the only one who has said I’d go along with whatever Mass Rome tells me to go along with. I mean that the last time a Mass was suppressed, it was not a popular decision…and one look at this forum shows that people who don’t agree with the Pope have far less trouble being vocal about that than in 1962. I would think the Pontiffs might think that Christ’s Bride will still be recovering from her last major surgery for some time.

In other words: “If you think we have a mess now…”

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Ok my point is that a Pope cannot say something Infallible that is heresy. If a Pope makes a statement that is heresy it cannot be Infallible even if he makes it in the form of an Ex Cathedra statement. So I mean lets say he teaches heresy to the entire Church and it meets the requirements of an Ex Cathedra statement other than it being heresy. It is not Infallible.

My point is that a Pope cannot make a statement that is heresy Infallible just because of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

I am sincerely trying to follow this logic, but your premesis in your first and second paragraph contradict each other and it seems circular to me. What am I missing.
Prayers & blessisngs
Deacon Ed B

 

[saint_rafael]

We have no official prohibition [of the EF] and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition, not because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever. Those words of Pius V were common for an important decision of the Pope. He always said, “This is valid forever.” But this was not a theological, it was not a dogmatic statement, this decree of the Pope promulgating his Tridentine Mass order. And so it could be changed by his successors…
In Italian, they say that one pope gives the bull and another takes the bull again, that is, he can change the disposition of his predecessor…

• Cardinal Stickler.

It is about time I take Cardinal Stickler head on.

Cardinal Stickler is wrong is his statements. He says that the words are not dogmatic or theological. It’s true, but the whole decree is rooted in dogma, Cardinal. Quo Primum was dealing with the Mass, the cental aspect of the Catholic faith. The Mass is where we get our theology from.

The Cardinal does not believe it was an Ex-Cathedra because other Popes have used “perpetual” and “forever.” ** Pope Puis V did intend it to be Ex-Cathdera because he is dealing with the Roman Rite handed down from St. Peter, St. Gregory, and Trent.** This is not a liturgical hour, psalm, music, calender, or religious order. It was the central aspect of faith. Pope Pius V spoke from the Chair of Peter even though this dogma was not officially developed or declared official until Vatican I.

There are many Catholics who are able to understand the difference between Quo Primum and the other fallible documents that used the words “perpetual” and “forever” because those were not spoken from the Chair and did not have the three elements mentioned earlier. Cardianal Stickler was no Archbishop Lefebvre.

I posted three points earlier that distinguishes Quo Primum from other fallible documents from the analysis of the theologian Fr. Raymond Dulac, and further analysis by Fr. Kramer, who could set Cardinal Stickler straight if they had talked about it.

 

[Freshman88]

In other words: “If you think we have a mess now…”

This is a common argument that I come across.

What is more important, avoiding an argument or seeking the truth? If a certain action is the right thing to do then the Church has an obligation to do so. If an abrupt change could lead to schism, then the Church should make the change with charity and patience, but the fear of schism is a call for charity and patience, not a reason to drop changes which concern the well-being of souls.

 

[Aragorn1]

I agree that I wouldn’t want to be Pope, however Pope Paul VI randomly decided to make the Novus Ordo everywhere, why couldn’t Benedict XVI do the opposite?

I was referring to your attitude towards those who would leave the Church.

 

[Aragorn1]

I still think that if it did happen, it wouldn’t be Infallible. I’m just doing what ifs, however what if God let it happen. To see who had the real faith, examples being St. Job and St. Peter.

Speculating about “what if…” on this matter is like speculating on whether 1+1 can equal 3. It just ain’t so, and could never be.

 

[saint_rafael]

a) Has the Holy Father specifically said or written somewhere that “the NO was a rupture and break with tradition”, or by “Pope Benedict in his heart and mind knows…” do you mean “I hope with all my heart that he thinks…”

I ask because “the difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits.…” doesn’t sound like the description of something that was so fundamentally unsound as you seem to suggest.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the Preface for Msgr. Klaus Gamber’s book **“The Reform of the Roman Liturgy”, **1993. He made that book famous. Here’ some of what he said:

“J.A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a 'liturgy which is the fruit of development”…
"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it–as in a manufacturing process–with a fabrication, a banal on- the-spot product." (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

He also wrote:

Today we might ask: Is there a Latin Rite anymore? Certainly there is no awreness of it. To most people the liturgy appears something for the individual congregession to arrange.

Joseph Ratzinger "Feast of Faith" 1986. Ignatius Press. Page 84

 

[EasterJoy]

This is a common argument that I come across.

What is more important, avoiding an argument or seeking the truth? If a certain action is the right thing to do then the Church has an obligation to do so. If an abrupt change could lead to schism, then the Church should make the change with charity and patience, but the fear of schism is a call for charity and patience, not a reason to drop changes which concern the well-being of souls.

I should clarify. If the Pope and the College of Cardinals felt more souls would be lost by resisting immediate major change than would be lost by implementing it, then of course they be duty-bound to risk it. I’m just saying that they might rightly feel the risk of reversing such major changes is considerable. We are inarguably a patient still in recovery from surgery, wouldn’t you say? That makes this a valid consideration, then.

As to “truth”, we are talking about making changes to the rubrics and/or availablity of a valid liturgy, in order to improve the overall quality of worship. The truth does not need “seeking” and we are not confronting a heresy. Pastoral consideration with regards to the best pace and means of introducing improvements is appropriate.