OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 12:48:30 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Papal reform of the liturgy  (Read 1667 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« on: September 01, 2010, 03:16:51 PM »

Ialmisry:
Quote
So we can conveniently ignore what the pope at the Vatican said in his "ecumenical council" Vatican II?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

So the RCC is conciliar, except when a Supreme Pontiff says otherwise, and he speaks infallibly ex cathedra at a ecumenical council, unless another pope issues a motu propriu saying otherwise.

Oh! The inscrutable mystery and wonders of the gift of papal infallibility, and its power of confusion!

Your attempt to mock the Catholic Church would be more effective if you were better informed. The reform called for by the Council (in 1963) was not the Pauline reform of 1970.  SC was in harmony with tradition but the 1970 creation of a new rite was not. They are not the same.

Also, an ecumenical council cannot throw out objective liturgical tradition, and Vatican II did not.

As for papal infallibility, it has nothing to do with it.  

Perhaps you are the one full of "confusion" here.

Also some advice---misinformed mockery and snark is not a very good way to convince the Catholics on this forum of the superiority of your faith or your church. Forgive me for saying so, but the tone of your posts in general lead me to believe that you have little interest in constructive or charitable dialogue.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2010, 03:23:16 PM by lubeltri » Logged
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 501


Transfiguration


« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2010, 03:34:43 PM »

As for papal infallibility, it has nothing to do with it.

What about universal jurisdiction? Liturgy is not a matter of dogma, but the pope definitely has the power to rewrite the Mass any way he pleases, right? Or am I off base.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2010, 05:17:35 PM »

As for papal infallibility, it has nothing to do with it.

What about universal jurisdiction? Liturgy is not a matter of dogma, but the pope definitely has the power to rewrite the Mass any way he pleases, right? Or am I off base.

The Pope does not create new dogma out of thin air, or rewrite old ones. His role is to make clarifications when one is needed and keep the church pointed in the right direction.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2010, 07:41:49 PM »

Ialmisry:
Quote
So we can conveniently ignore what the pope at the Vatican said in his "ecumenical council" Vatican II?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

So the RCC is conciliar, except when a Supreme Pontiff says otherwise, and he speaks infallibly ex cathedra at a ecumenical council, unless another pope issues a motu propriu saying otherwise.

Oh! The inscrutable mystery and wonders of the gift of papal infallibility, and its power of confusion!

Your attempt to mock the Catholic Church would be more effective if you were better informed. The reform called for by the Council (in 1963) was not the Pauline reform of 1970.  SC was in harmony with tradition but the 1970 creation of a new rite was not. They are not the same.

Also, an ecumenical council cannot throw out objective liturgical tradition, and Vatican II did not.

As for papal infallibility, it has nothing to do with it.  

Perhaps you are the one full of "confusion" here.

Also some advice---misinformed mockery and snark is not a very good way to convince the Catholics on this forum of the superiority of your faith or your church. Forgive me for saying so, but the tone of your posts in general lead me to believe that you have little interest in constructive or charitable dialogue.
I think that this might be  a question of interest to the Orthodox Christian:
Does the Roman Pope have the right to impose a new or reformed liturgy under his power of supreme universal  jurisidiction?
Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2010, 09:41:05 PM »

Hmm.

First, ialmisry is confusing things by equating ex cathedra with motu proprios. Ecumenical council-plus-Pope and Pope ex cathedra define doctrine. Motu proprios and liturgical rules are about discipline. Also, Vatican II was a 'pastoral' council, which means although Rome says it's ecumenical, it didn't define any doctrine.

It seems the Pope, with the claim of universal jurisdiction, can change the liturgy as seemed to happen with the Novus Ordo and, in a much smaller way, the Tridentine Mass in 1570, which was only a slight edit of the mediæval Mass with lots of loopholes (local uses older than 200 years were exempt).

Which leads to the other point: throughout most of history the Popes didn't treat the liturgy like something they could change on a whim. Quite the opposite. Standard RC operating procedure on this was like the Orthodox. It was local and changed very slowly. (The Tridentine Mass and Byzantine Liturgy evolved the same way and at the same time, the Middle Ages.) Pope Pius IX, the man who called the council that defined papal infallibility, Vatican I, when asked to add St Joseph to the Roman Canon (anaphora) (which Pope John XXIII did about 100 years later but anyway), said something like: 'I can't. I'm only the Pope.' That seems the true mind and heart of the RCC on the matter.
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2010, 11:18:33 PM »

Standard RC operating procedure on this was like the Orthodox. It was local and changed very slowly.
The New Mass seems to be a radical break with the preVatican II Tridentine Mass and it was imposed on the Latin Church. Mariachi Masses, Halloween Masses, dancing girl Masses, Folk Masses, Guitar Masses, Cowboy Masses, Lesbian and Gay Masses, Puppet Masses, etc. None of thsi was seen before. Many of those who wanted to stay with the Tridentine Mass were excommunicated.
Also, it does not answer the possible fears of the Orthodox Church on the question of the supreme universal jurisdiciton of the Roman Pontiff. If the Pope of Rome has the power of supreme universal jurisdiction, then would he not have the authority to impose a liturgy of his choosing on the whole Church? Does he have this authority or not?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2010, 11:39:51 PM »

Ialmisry:
Quote
So we can conveniently ignore what the pope at the Vatican said in his "ecumenical council" Vatican II?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

So the RCC is conciliar, except when a Supreme Pontiff says otherwise, and he speaks infallibly ex cathedra at a ecumenical council, unless another pope issues a motu propriu saying otherwise.

Oh! The inscrutable mystery and wonders of the gift of papal infallibility, and its power of confusion!

Your attempt to mock the Catholic Church would be more effective if you were better informed. The reform called for by the Council (in 1963) was not the Pauline reform of 1970.  SC was in harmony with tradition but the 1970 creation of a new rite was not. They are not the same.

Also, an ecumenical council cannot throw out objective liturgical tradition, and Vatican II did not.

As for papal infallibility, it has nothing to do with it.  

Perhaps you are the one full of "confusion" here.

Also some advice---misinformed mockery and snark is not a very good way to convince the Catholics on this forum of the superiority of your faith or your church. Forgive me for saying so, but the tone of your posts in general lead me to believe that you have little interest in constructive or charitable dialogue.

If it us a question of strength, He is the strong one. If it is a matter of justice, who dares to summon Him to court?-Job 9:19

I could quote your canons, your council's decisions, your "apostolic constitutions," etc. etc. etc. or my posts quoting such matters, and I might, when I'm not so tired nor interested in other matters. But in the meantime...a simple question:

You yourself say that your Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul created a new rite, and threw out liturgical tradition. OK, you are you to say?  Who are the traditionalist bishops to say?  Who would a council of bishops be to say?  In short, how would anyone judge the Vatican and call His Holiness on his obvious error?  What canon would he be judged guilty of breaking, and what canonical court could be convened under your code to have him render account?

You may counter, God would not let His church sink into error, but you just said infallibility has nothing to do with it.

And you have had a good run with these Pope Bendict XVI and Pope John Paul II of Rome, but we know that there have been plenty of successions of "bad popse." What if Cardinal Martini emerged as pope in 2005 (as allegedly almost happened)?

Of course, recalling the suppression of the ancient Greek liturgy in Magna Graecia in Southern Italy, leading up to 1054, we know that the Vatican has, and does, suppress liturgies...Fr. Toth and Archb. Ireland...Latinization

etc.

Charity doesn't require me sipping the kool aid.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2010, 11:50:11 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2010, 11:43:06 PM »

As for papal infallibility, it has nothing to do with it.

What about universal jurisdiction? Liturgy is not a matter of dogma, but the pope definitely has the power to rewrite the Mass any way he pleases, right? Or am I off base.

The Pope does not create new dogma out of thin air, or rewrite old ones.

He just "develops" doctrine.

Quote
His role is to make clarifications when one is needed and keep the church pointed in the right direction.

So the story says. However the debacle coming out of the 60's that the Vatican is just now emerging from says something else. The fish rotted from the head down.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2010, 11:54:22 PM »

Hmm.

First, ialmisry is confusing things by equating ex cathedra with motu proprios.

No, I did not.

Quote
Ecumenical council-plus-Pope and Pope ex cathedra define doctrine. Motu proprios and liturgical rules are about discipline.

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the rather confusing language of Lumen Gentium on the matter.

Quote
Also, Vatican II was a 'pastoral' council, which means although Rome says it's ecumenical, it didn't define any doctrine.
For a council that supposedly didn't define anything, it sure changed a lot of things.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2010, 12:32:09 AM »

Ialmisry:
Quote
So we can conveniently ignore what the pope at the Vatican said in his "ecumenical council" Vatican II?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

So the RCC is conciliar, except when a Supreme Pontiff says otherwise, and he speaks infallibly ex cathedra at a ecumenical council, unless another pope issues a motu propriu saying otherwise.

Oh! The inscrutable mystery and wonders of the gift of papal infallibility, and its power of confusion!

Your attempt to mock the Catholic Church would be more effective if you were better informed. The reform called for by the Council (in 1963) was not the Pauline reform of 1970.  SC was in harmony with tradition but the 1970 creation of a new rite was not. They are not the same.

Also, an ecumenical council cannot throw out objective liturgical tradition, and Vatican II did not.

As for papal infallibility, it has nothing to do with it.  

Perhaps you are the one full of "confusion" here.

Also some advice---misinformed mockery and snark is not a very good way to convince the Catholics on this forum of the superiority of your faith or your church. Forgive me for saying so, but the tone of your posts in general lead me to believe that you have little interest in constructive or charitable dialogue.

If it us a question of strength, He is the strong one. If it is a matter of justice, who dares to summon Him to court?-Job 9:19

I could quote your canons, your council's decisions, your "apostolic constitutions," etc. etc. etc. or my posts quoting such matters, and I might, when I'm not so tired nor interested in other matters. But in the meantime...a simple question:

You yourself say that your Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul created a new rite, and threw out liturgical tradition. OK, you are you to say?  Who are the traditionalist bishops to say?  Who would a council of bishops be to say?  In short, how would anyone judge the Vatican and call His Holiness on his obvious error?  What canon would he be judged guilty of breaking, and what canonical court could be convened under your code to have him render account?

You may counter, God would not let His church sink into error, but you just said infallibility has nothing to do with it.

And you have had a good run with these Pope Bendict XVI and Pope John Paul II of Rome, but we know that there have been plenty of successions of "bad popse." What if Cardinal Martini emerged as pope in 2005 (as allegedly almost happened)?

Of course, recalling the suppression of the ancient Greek liturgy in Magna Graecia in Southern Italy, leading up to 1054, we know that the Vatican has, and does, suppress liturgies...Fr. Toth and Archb. Ireland...Latinization

etc.

Charity doesn't require me sipping the kool aid.
That church in your post is a Latinized Melkite Church in Wisconsin
http://www.melkite.org/latin.htm
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2010, 12:46:14 AM »

Here's how the church looks now after the latinizations had been reversed










http://www.melkite.org/parishinfo.html
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 12:52:43 AM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2010, 06:22:35 AM »

For a council that supposedly didn't define anything, it sure changed a lot of things.

True.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2010, 07:11:05 AM »

Liturgical changes can have an impact on the lives of both priests and faithful.

While Fr Gabriel (Bunge) had been a Byzantine Rite priestmonk for many years at the monastery of Chevetogne, when he moved to his hermitage in the Canton of Ticino he found himself in an Ambrosian-rite parish and he celebrated according to that rite.  But the changes to the traditional Ambrosian Rite did not sit well on his soul and he made a decision to return to the Byzantine Rite.    By God's grace this brought him into holy Orthodoxy.

See the current thread about his reception into Russian Orthodoxy last week.
Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2010, 08:14:18 AM »

Thanks for the background on that news story. I'd heard - and once briefly saw a modern Ambrosian Rite altar missal - that the Ambrosian Rite, the rite of the RC Archdiocese of Milan (very similar to the Roman Rite, traditionally in Latin like it, but not the Roman Rite), was Novus Ordofied about 40 years ago so now it's essentially the NO with a few remaining quirks like six Sundays of Advent like the Byzantine Rite.

Another 'high-church' Greek Catholic 'doxes on principle. I think I understand.
Logged

lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2010, 11:06:07 AM »

Fortunately Summorum Pontificum has cleared the way for the other traditional Latin rites. The traditional Ambrosian rite (with its beautiful chant) is now being celebrated in Milan, and I was fortunate to assist at a wonderful Bragan-rite Mass last year. Other rites are also making a comeback in Europe and America, including the Dominican rite and the Carmelite rite.

Of course, the traditional Roman rite is making steady strides, while the new Roman rite slowly but steadily improves.

These tradition-minded trends will continue after Benedict passes on, and the Holy Father knows this. He is patiently tilling the ground for a coming harvest, prudently weeding when he can while also waiting for biology to take out some of the most stubborn weeds.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 11:08:23 AM by lubeltri » Logged
ag_vn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 408



« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2010, 11:30:40 AM »

Isn't the traditional Ambrosian rite celebrated in one parish only in Milan?
Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2010, 11:43:53 AM »

Isn't the traditional Ambrosian rite celebrated in one parish only in Milan?

You're thinking of the Mozarabic Rite, another Latin non-Roman rite, which got its name from its origins in Moorish-occupied Spain. AFAIK it's still only used in one church in Toledo, Spain, but there may be revivals/exhibitions in others.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 12:13:49 PM by The young fogey » Logged

ag_vn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 408



« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2010, 12:22:56 PM »

Isn't the traditional Ambrosian rite celebrated in one parish only in Milan?

You're thinking of the Mozarabic Rite, another Latin non-Roman rite, which got its name from its origins in Moorish-occupied Spain. AFAIK it's still only used in one church in Toledo, Spain, but there may be revivals/exhibitions in others.

Yes, I know about the Mozarabic rite, but I meant the traditional Ambrosian rite in its form before the changes followed the Second Vatican Council. I've read somewhere that it is celebrated in only one parish in Milan, after Summorum Pontificum.
Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2010, 12:51:35 PM »

That sounds about right.
Logged

augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2010, 01:03:04 PM »

You can download the "Breviarium Ambrosianum" here:http://books.google.com/books?id=N9AHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP1&dq=breviarium+ambrosianum&hl=en&ei=mth_TJGLJob_ngfyzu2-AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2010, 03:32:52 PM »

I don't know if you can download it but you can read it online. (If your Latin's up to it.) Gratias tibi ago.
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,474


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2010, 03:38:21 PM »

I don't know if you can download it but you can read it online. (If your Latin's up to it.) Gratias tibi ago.

it's downloadable as a pdf.  the link is in the upper right section of the viewer's screen.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2010, 03:45:12 PM »

Thank you!
Logged

lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2010, 05:57:29 PM »

Last year I was blessed to hear Ambrosian chant at St. Paul's parish in Cambridge, Mass., sung by a schola from Milan.

There is a priest in Providence, Rhode Island, who has faculties to celebrate the Rite of Braga (Portugal), which he does sometimes.

The Dominican rite is regularly celebrated in about half a dozen places in the US. It was never reformed after the council because the order decided to drop their liturgical tradition wholesale and adopt the Novus Ordo. But the Dominican liturgy is slowly coming back. Friars in both the Eastern and Western Provinces are allowed to celebrate the Dominican Mass, and the Eastern Province this summer voted to have the rite taught to all friars in formation. I also noticed when I visited last year that the friars at the Eastern Province headquarters in Washington are now praying the Dominican rite Compline.

Brick by brick, as Fr. Z says :-). There are 4 or 5 weekly traditional Roman rite Masses around Boston now, up from only one 4 years ago.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 06:02:50 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.095 seconds with 51 queries.