The papal powers and the litugical reform

Here’s something interesting. Compare the first quotes I provided from Cardinal Ratzinger to this one.

Cardinal Ratzinger: "J.A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our time, defined the liturgy of his day, 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 the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product".

Here’s the first quote:

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Cardinal Ratzinger: "After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166)."

If we compare those two quotes are left with an interesting conclusion.

What is it?

That liturgy should develop organically? I don’t think anyone here disputes that.

Yes, it should develope organically. But the question is: was the new mass an organic developement, or was it a “banal on-the-spot product”, that was “manufactured”. Let’s ask someone who should know…

Cardinal Ratzinger: "What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product".

So, according to our new Pope, the new mass is not an organic developement. That raises a problem when you consider what our Pope said about a Pope’s authority with respect to the liturgy.

Cardinal Ratzinger: "Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . ." (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166).”

Cardinal Ratzinger said “the Popes authority is bound to Tradition”, and he can only be the humble servent of the lawful developement of the Mass. Yet he also said that after Vatican II “we abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”

Are you saying the Novus Ordo mass is invalid because the pope didn’t have the power to promulgate it? Or that is was simply an inadvisable move on his part, considering how it was developed?

Firstly, I just quoted Cardinal Ratzinger. I did’t give my own opinions.

But to answer your questions, let’s assume a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say that a Pope abandoned the organic developement of the Mass and replaced it with a “banal on the spot product”, which overstepped his authority. That in and of itself would not make the mass invalid.

All that is required for a mass to be valid is for the correct words to be used in the consecration, for the correct “matter” (bread and wine), and for the priest to have the intention of celebrating Mass. That’s all that is required for validity.

Another question could be posed: It a Pope created a “ban on the spot pruduct” of a mass, which overstepped his authority, would that mass be licit. It would seem to me that it would not be licit.

The quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger could lead one to believe that he is trying to say that the Novus Ordo is illicit. But I question that conclusion because if he believed the NO to be illicit, why would he celebrate mass according to that missal? I think there is some additional information, not contained in the quoted pieces, that forms the rest of the picture for Pope Benedict.

Yes, let’s ask someone who should know. How about Pope Benedict XVI’s latest statement on the subject??? Okay, good idea!

What does he say?

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

[quote=]There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
[/quote]

I will just say this. In my opinion our new Pope is doing all he can to restore things. He is in a delicate position with strong enemies on his left. These enemies were threatening schism if he lifted the false ban on the old Mass. He did life the false ban, but did it un such a way that they did not fall away from the Church.

If the Pope is convinced the new mass is a disaster and the principle cause of the crisis the Church is currently facing (“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy…”. - Cardinal Ratzinger, Milestones) I don’t think he would come out and ban it all at once. Instead, I think he would probably do it in a more prudent way that would not scandalize the faithful.

In addition, in my opinion, if the Pope believed that mistranslating “pro multis” as “for all” invalidated the Mass, he would not come out and say so, lest it cause too much of a scandal. Instead, he would just make the correction without saying anything further.

In other words, I think he is trying to be as prudent and diplomatic as possible in setting things back in order.

That’s lots of nice speculation on your part. I think a better explanation is that he means exactly what he says, I don’t think he’s lying to us.

Not squirming terribly. Pope Benedict may elect to never abrogate the TLM and most neo-conservatives would probably affirm that it wouldn’t be prudential to do so (I’ve never heard the term abrogate used by anyone, BUT “traditionalists” screaming “It was never abrogated!”, to which I would reply,“Who said it was?”)

That’s beside the point, however. Some future pope could do away with a form of the Mass. He has the authority, except in the essentials (form, the actual words of consecration, matter, and intent, ie, the priest must intend what the Church intends that he intend). All of the rest is not immutable.

And those who post papal quotes should remember all the times they’ve disagreed with the same Pontiff. If he can be wrong about ecumenism, can’t he be wrong about this?

The difference is that one is consistent with what the Church has always taught and the other is a complete reversal.

Yet, does not the “complete reversal” touch on a matter of faith and morals, in your opinion? What the pope is commenting on in terms of the Mass is a matter of discipline and we all know that the disciplines of the Church are only negatively protected, ie, that they cannot lead the faithful into impiety. He could be dead wrong about this, because as you and your confreres point out, so many popes have been factually wrong. Quo Primum suppressed rites.

Pg 299 “ On August 31 , 1973, Monsignor Sustar…insisted on a statement being issued as to whether the Mass of Pius V was unconditionally prohibited. After a new study of the question, it was decided that a response would be opportune…. On October 17, 1973, the secretary of the Congregation {Annibale Bugnini} explained matters to Monsignor Sustar as follows: 1. The “Missal of Pius V” was definitely abrogated by the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum. One need only read the final paragraph.”

I believe that the following paragraph is what Bugnini is referring to.
“The effective date for what we have prescribed in this Constitution shall be the First Sunday of Advent of this year, 30 November. We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.”
Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on Holy Thursday, 3 April 1969, the sixth year of our pontificate.
Paul PP VI
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/GIRMALL.HTM

For someone who thinks Buggsy was a freemasonic modernist, you spend a lot of time quoting him. I said I’ve never heard it and I doubt most people have. I’ve never had a bad thing to say about the TLM and I’ve certainly never said it was abrogated.
[/quote]

The complete reversal I was talking about is present day ecumenism.

Yes, I realize that.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.