Thread topic:
The Jurisdiction of the Bull Quo PrimumMy response:
1) Popes have authority over discipline. The Liturgy is a matter of discipline. As such, changes in discipline are prudential judgements, and not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error. However, since Liturgy is the primary means of catechesis in Faith and Morals, such changes are grave matters. And criticism of these prudential decisions is valid BUT can only be undertaken knowing that such criticism itself is a grave matter and should only be undertaken by those with a deep enough understanding of these issues that their criticism itself does not cause scandal or lead the innocent into schism or disobedience where obedience is due.
2) Since Popes have authority over discipline, any Eucharistic Liturgy they promulgate ---if it has the proper matter and form--- is by its very nature Valid and Licit.
No Pope is bound in disciplinary matters by previous Popes.
3) These are difficult times. Simply questioning and searching, honestly, does not make one a schismatic. Questioning the link between the current grave scandals and the changes in the Church since Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo mass does not make one a schismatic, though some conclusions drawn may clearly and onjectively be incorrect.
5)Denying Papal authority over the discipline of the Liturgy does make one schismatic.
6) Denying the Novus Ordo is valid and licit or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it does make one schismatic.
7) Questioning the fruits of the Novus Ordo, the quality and quantity of its catechesis, and pointing out where and when it becomes illicit or invalid is not schismatic.
8) Questioning the prudential judgement of the Pope can be done charitably in some circumstances but most often lately such questioning has itself been imprudent.
Your question:
How does your preaching relate to the topic of this thread?
Please at least try to pay attention.
Sorry. In reading your posts it is difficult to sift the wheat from the chaff.
We need to emphasize what Pope St. Gregory said about the rights of bishops. "Successor to the apostles" is more than a rhetorical term and means that the pope must treat other bishops as brothers.
It is not at all clear that popes have authority over the Divine Liturgy. Many of the greatest liturgists have questioned this assumption since the Divine Liturgy involves dogma as well as worship.
Here is Klaus Gamber: "Since there is no document that specifically assigns to the Apostolic See the authority to change, let alone abolish, the traditional liturgical rite; and since, furthermore, it can be shown that not a single predecessor of Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman liturgy, the assertion that the Holy See has the authority to change the liturgical rite would appear to be debatable to say the least."
Gamber does not deny popes have the right to make incremental, minor, changes. Popes such as Pius XII have acknowledged this in such encyclicals as Mediator Dei. But as that encyclical points out, the traditional Mass had evolved over millenia under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How can it be that radical change should not be considered blashpemous? There is no precedence for what was done.
It is known that even Gregory I faced a rebellion among the faithful when he changed the language of the Hanc Igitur only slightly. Many sought to kill him for it, so agitated were they by even minor alterations in the liturgy. Imagine how our forefathers would have reacted to such a complete revolution in worship.
You state that "denying Papal authority over the discipline of the Liturgy does make one schismatic." This is on the surface an absurd statement and very mischievous. Was Gamber a schismatic? Since when has this ever been a doctrine of the Catholic Church? Where had this new teaching ever been formally promulgated? You state as well that even denying that "Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it [the new Mass] does make one schismatic."
This is complete and total nonsense.
You people have a genius for finding schisms growing on trees. Catholics have the right to question anything to do with this issue. They have the absolute right to think as well as to obey and not be browbeaten by those whose faith is the papacy itself and not the Catholic Church. This is especially true at a time like this when apostates have control not only over many powerful dioceses in the Church, but also over many chambers in the halls of the Vatican.