Posted on 07/19/2021 3:34:06 PM PDT by ebb tide
Only four years had passed since the publication of the new Missal when Pope Paul VI surprised the Catholic world with a new Ordo Missæ, dated April 6, 1969. The revision made in 1965 did not touch the traditional liturgical rite. In accordance with the mandate of Article 50 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, it had been primarily concerned with removing some later additions to the Order of the Mass. The publication of the Ordo Missæ of 1969, however, created a new liturgical rite. In other words, the traditional liturgical rite had not simply been revised as the Council had intended. Rather, it had been completely abolished, and a couple of years later, the traditional liturgical rite was, in fact, forbidden.
All this leads to the question: Does such a radical reform follow the tradition of the Church?
...The argument could be made that the pope's authority to introduce a new liturgical rite, that is, to do so without a decision by a council, can be derived from the "full and highest power" (plena et suprema potestas) he has in the Church, as cited by the First Vatican Council, i.e., power over matters quæ ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiæ per totum orbem diffusæ pertinent ("that pertain to the discipline and rule of the Church spread out over all the world") (Denzinger, 1831).
However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition. For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of "discipline and rule of the Church."
To this we can add that there is not a single document, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional liturgical rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church—that is, as Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus).
In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite.Thus, the eminent theologian Suarez (who died in 1617), citing even earlier authors such as Cajetan (who died in 1534), took the position that a pope would be schismatic "if he, as is his duty, would not be in full communion with the body of the Church as, for example, if he were to excommunicate the entire Church, or if he were to change all the liturgical rites of the Church that have been upheld by apostolic tradition." [Et hoc secundo modo posset Papa esse schismaticus, si nollet tenere cum toto Ecclesiæ corpore unionem et coniunctionem quam debet, ut si tenat et totem Ecclesiam excommunicare, aut si vellel omnes Ecclesiasticas cæremonias apostolica traditione firmatas evertere.]
As we examine the issue of unlimited papal authority and how it relates to the authority to change the established liturgical rite, if the statement made by Suarez still is not entirely convincing, this argument just may be: the already established fact that, until Pope Paul VI, there has not been a single pope who introduced the type of fundamental changes in liturgical forms which we now witness.
Klaus Gamber
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (excerpt)
(Die Reform der römischen Liturgie: Vorgeschichte und Problematik)
Let’s face it, the pope is not a Christian which makes the Roman Catholic Church inconsequential. It is what it is.
The Pope is not the Catholic Church any more than the President is the United States.
Then what meaning does he, any pope, or the RC church have at all?
Did you read the article?
The Pope’s power has limits just as the President’s power has limits.
Then what use is he or what authority does any pope have? Or ever has have?
Vatican II is the result of the progressives in the NWO. It is/was the progressives participation of bringing the Catholic Church in line with the One World Religion and needed the Church to become a part of the movement of New World Order for it to succeed. But the progressives are forgetting one thing, the TLM has been around for more than 1600 years and is the highest form of adoration of The Christ, but the Progressives refuse to understand that. The Christ won’t let the progressives destroy his Traditional Latin Mass which was ordained and originated at the Last Supper by The Christ himself.
“Then what use is he or what authority does any pope have? Or ever has have?”
Too long, you wouldn’t read.
Which is another way of saying you can’t rebut my point. No has the RC church ever been able. Bergolio just proves that.
My parental authority over my children is limited.
Then what use is it? .........right??
I have no idea what that gibberish even means, unless you are calling yourself God.
Since we all have original sin, any legitimate authority can be abused. That is not an argument against the existence of that authority in the first place.
This is a common principle in life and law: abusus non tollit usum.
How can abused authority be legitimate?
Jorge Bergoglio is not the Catholic Church. You make no sense.
Let’s face it, the pope is not a Christian which makes the Roman Catholic Church inconsequential. It is what it is.
......................................
I didn’t know the two were one and the same! In any case neither you nor anyone living knows whether the pope or anyone else is or is not a Christian.
I’m confident in declaring the pope is a very poor Christian if he is one at all.
The Christ
...................................
That will stymie “the many” for sure. Nice!
Too long, you wouldn’t read.
......................................
Besides, these types already know the correct answers to the questions they ask! Playing rhetorical games. Ignore them.
This is a common principle in life and law: abusus non tollit usum.
.......................................
Well and truly said and every word of it!
I’m confident in declaring the pope is a very poor Christian if he is one at all.
.............................................
You’re embarrassing yourself by saying something so ignorant. There’s a good possibility that you yourself are, in the eyes of God, a very poor Christian. But be patient because you’re going to find out for sure soon enough! If you meet old Beelzebub when you croak, remember that I warned you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.