Theological Development

In a perfect Traditional Catholic World would all theological development cease? Would the Holy Spirit have nothing more to teach us?

What developments in Doctrine would most Traditionalists feel would take place in a perfect Traditional Catholic World?

I ask these questions not to argue–just to see what might be permissable as far as theological or Doctrinal development in the minds of Traditional Catholics.

Would the fifth Marian Dogma be possible? What other Doctrinal developments would be possible?

What would the perfect Trdientine Mass be like…1962 or earlier?

What could and could not be changed about that Mass without violating Tradition?

I guess Traditionalists beeliever in theological development as much as the response to this thread!

a perfectly obedient 8 year old does not understand things as a perfectly obedient 20 years old, or 40 year old.
the Church grows older and wiser.
so do we.
we accept all with faith, theology develops in order to clarify that which is hard for our intellects to make sense of.
i knew that my mom was my mom when i was 4, but now i know how exactly that came to be.
my theological understanding has developed in terms of knowing God. so has the Church’s.

rough analogy, hope it helps

Has the Church’s understanding of TLM grown in the last 400 years? How has that understanding developed? Is any change in it a good thing or by defintion forbidden?

The Truth is the Truth. But our side has to believe it and reinforce it to counter the growing attacks against us.

There is really no such thing as a more perfect Mass. The Mass is perfect in itself, if done according to the prescibed formulas.

The one question remaining that if the Pope requires only the 1963 Mass (as opposed to the 1947 Mass, for example) does the celebration of the 1947 Mass become invalid. Or just illicit? Or a tolerated abuse? And would that make it less perfect, or did I just contradict myself?

Enough of my ramblings.

Be careful not to go off topic here. Anyone who wants to discuss side issues should start a new thread. Thank you.

I would have to question the term “Theological Developments” being equated to “Doctrinal Development”.
Can you give a tighter definition?
The Mass is a development in the PRACTICE of worship. I fail to see it as a Theological development in respect to say, DOCTRINE.
The “5th Marian Dogma” if such should be made so has nothing to do with the exercise of liturgical practice.
Further, if this formal declaration of the “5th Marian Dogma” should come about, it would have to be shown to be Apostolic and therefore no new Doctrine at all, but only a formal declaration of what the Church has always believed.

In summary, the 2 examples seem to co-mingle Doctrine & practice.
That’s why we should get a definition, as you intend it, on “Theological Development”.
I see you intent on the development of Praxis, but then you throw in Doctrine.
Do you really want to cover both?
I don’t see Doctrinal Development as Catholic with any historical pedigree. I do see formalizing Doctrine that is materially there from the Apostles, as no new Doctrinal revelation can come after them.
Formalizing, say in a Dogmatic pronouncement, is nearly always, if not always, a response to it’s denial or misrepresentation of what the Church always believed.

The adherents to the TLM see it as the pinnacle in the exercise of Practice in Worship. However, it has a pedigree going back as far as we have adequate records.
If there is a Theological development to it, I’d say that it ever more explicitly and elaborately encompasses what the Doctrines of the Faith have always been.
That is, if you are working on the perfection of something for 600 yrs that started in synagogues, then a roadside house, then moved into caves, then came out into freedom, there really was not much development other than what opportunity allowed.
The TLM we see in 1900 would be completely recognizable in 600ad sans the electricity, pews, or other accidents of opportunity.

By definition nothing can be changed without changing Tradition. As for “violating”, that is rather a loaded word.
We can think of lots of possible changes that would be blasphemous or absurd, and would render the Mass unworthy. If we restrict ourselves to those seriously offered, innovations such as consecrating grape juice instead of wine, or a woman priest, would quite clearly make the Mass invalid. Others, such as clown Masses, are valid but in excruciatingly poor taste and should prompt complaints about violating the dignity of the Mass.

The we have got changes which are not in themselves unworthy, but break centuries of tradition. The most obvious being use of the vernacular, Mass facing the congregation, distribution of the Precious Blood, Eucharistic Ministers, and so forth.

Finally, Trent standardised the liturgy for reasons which made sense at the time - at a guess, so that priest could neither be accused by Protestants of laxness nor by Catholics of habouring Protestant sympathies. This had the side-effect of freezing organic development. So the change, when it came in Vatican II, was a very radical and sudden one.

Maybe I can get at it better this way: were the changes in TLM that were made from Trent to 1962 good changes?

Another question for TLM lovers: are there any things about TLM as celebrated in 1962 that you think could be changed for the better?

Should the Liturgy from 1962 to be perpetually Zeroxed and frozen as it was never to change in any respect at all?

So today we have Priest who harbor protestant sympathies. It was neither good then or now.

Hi Jerry-Jet,

Are things really slow over at that other forum? :slight_smile: Btw, wouldn’t it be a liturgical development?..I thought all the theological developments were done post 1962?

Why don’t we start off by asking you what you know about the changes that were made to the Roman Missal from Trent to 1962?
Was the Canon of the Mass changed? Was the Papal Bull De Defectibus in the front of every Altar Missal from Trent to '62?

Another question for TLM lovers: are there any things about TLM as celebrated in 1962 that you think could be changed for the better?

[Edited by Moderator]

Should the Liturgy from 1962 to be perpetually Zeroxed and frozen as it was never to change in any respect at all?

Jerry, why would we need to xerox it and freeze it…wouldn’t that be redundant? :slight_smile:


I just weondered if the Traditional mind is capable of change. I never said that anything had to change.

Are some TLM lovers afraid that if they allowed for the hypothetical chance of any change at all that they would be branded and unworthy?

Let me try again to crack the mind of a traditionalist: Is liturgical change past 1962 possible or anathema?"

Would it be possible for TLM of 1962 to change if the greatest LM lovers in the world and if one of them included the pope were to recommend change to TLM of 1962?

Would such a recommendation be tatamount to heresy?

What if only One word of the TLM from 1962 was changed?

[Edited by Moderator]

It needs change. Other Rites have masses that change. Is TLM the only Mass in the history of the universe that God designated to never change at all?

What would be more difficult for the Catholic Church to do–add the three books accepted by the Greek Orthodox to the Canon of the Scriptures or add one single word to TLM?

You seem to be of the mind that it needs to be changed. What changes do you believe would benefit the Mass?

I don’t believe it needs to be changed–I just believe that if the Catholic Church changed anything about it it would be OK and wouldn’t be the end of the world.

Do I trust too much?

Though I am open to correction on the history of this, I think that at Trent the feeling was that the Protestant reformation had made priests very vulnerable. If a priest put a couple of prayers into the vernacular that might be interpreted as coded Protestnat sympathies and become a cause celebre. If he got a bit of Latin grammar garbled he might be accused by Protestants of ignornace. The solution was to take all freedom away from the priest. Literally not one word could be changed.

This had the unintended side effect of freezing all organic development of the liturgy. When reform finally came, it was very drastic.

A traditionalist is basically someone who says “too drastic”. However few traditionalists are people with the authority to make changes to the liturgy. So whilst one could propose various changes to the 1962 missal, there is not really much point in doing so. We may celebrate either the NO or, with special permission, the Tridentine Rite. To celebrate a reformed Tridentine rite would require special permission from special permission, which would just complicate the issue and wouldn’t be very politically astute.

I honestly believe the NO should be quietly suppressed and the TLM allowed to organically develop as was intended by the second Vatican council.

If the TLM had organically developed between 1962 and today as was intended by the Second Vatican council and if there had never been a Novus Ordo–how wold the TLM be different today than it was in 1962?

Well, let’s see now. Propose your changes and we can have the 2007 version of the 1962 Missal and the 2007 version of the 1970 Missal and by the time it gets approved, the 2009 ICEL special edition of the 2007 Missal. Those printing presses will be overworked. :smiley:

My prayer is that all the different masses of the different rites of the Catholic Church will continue to get better and develop if that is the will of God!

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