Founder of LifeTeen Excommunicated

[PhuturePriest]

I'm sorry, I'm sorry! I have to intervene. I won't be able to rest at night otherwise. The turn of phrase you're looking for is 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'.

Sorry for the hijack.

​I made a typo anyway. I caught it but it was too late to edit it, unfortunately. The editing time we have really is too short these days.

[Nihil Obstat]

It did not in any way give experimenters legitimacy, ​because Sacrosanctum Concilium explicitly states that no priest under any circumstances has the power to tamper with the words or the form of the Mass. The Council held that you need an extraordinary authority such as the Bishops or the Pope in order to do something as serious as changing the Mass, not some renegade priest or program organizer who wants to spice the music up to keep kids interested.

Besides, with that point I implicitly was speaking about treating kids like a joke, not the liturgy itself.

​Not to mention that tampering with the Liturgy didn't appear as a result of Vatican II anyway. In the years prior to Vatican II, liturgical abuses and changes in the Liturgy were happening all over the place from priests and bishops, and in fact that sort of thing has pretty much always occurred. I read that Saint Robert Bellarmine would often attend Masses posing as a layperson and then afterwards would walk into the sacristy and count off all the liturgical abuses he witnessed and told off the priests for committing them.

I said the Consilium, not the Council or S.C. The Consilium was the group actually responsible for the Pauline Mass.

The fact is, whether or not creating a new Mass was authorized by the Council, ultimately the Pope allowed it. This resulted in the explicit impression that legitimate authority is the be all and end all of liturgical liciety. If the pope allows it then it is OK by definition. And that is where the reformers truly departed from Tradition, because that is not the Catholic way.

[PhuturePriest]

I said the Consilium, not the Council or S.C. The Consilium was the group actually responsible for the Pauline Mass.

The fact is, whether or not creating a new Mass was authorized by the Council, ultimately the Pope allowed it. This resulted in the explicit impression that legitimate authority is the be all and end all of liturgical liciety. If the pope allows it then it is OK by definition. And that is where the reformers truly departed from Tradition, because that is not the Catholic way.

​People took from it what they wanted. The Council was clear that only the authority of the Church has the power to alter the Liturgy, and it is not their fault if renegades didn't listen. 

It would have been preferable if punishments for such renegades had been harsher or, better yet, existent in the first place, however.

[Nihil Obstat]

​People took from it what they wanted. The Council was clear that only the authority of the Church has the power to alter the Liturgy, and it is not their fault if renegades didn't listen. 

It would have been preferable if punishments for such renegades had been harsher or, better yet, existent in the first place, however.

​That is part of the issue though, because the impression was deliberately given that the authority of the Church is the only standard by which we judge liturgical developments. If authority is the only requirement, then anything can be allowed as long as it has the backing of said authority. So if some experimenters like Lifeteen and the Neocatechumenal Way want to invent extra details for their liturgies, and if they can get the approval of the authorities for those experiments, then everything is kosher. The problem is that the approval of the pope or the bishops is not the only requirement here, and it never was. Not even the pope has the authority to do what he pleases with the Mass. He is its custodian and steward; never its author.

[Papist]

​Count me as the first teen (I'm 19) that you meet who expressed enjoyment our of rock music at mass  I have been a member of MEJ and we have song like this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFx6NgRsa5g I like the text and I like that I can sing it (because most of the time we can't sing at my parish because the choir sing or it's songs that are to hard to sing). My favorite mass are those who have Taizé music (of course). Sorry not sorry. 

​I just vurped.

[PhuturePriest]

​That is part of the issue though, because the impression was deliberately given that the authority of the Church is the only standard by which we judge liturgical developments. If authority is the only requirement, then anything can be allowed as long as it has the backing of said authority. So if some experimenters like Lifeteen and the Neocatechumenal Way want to invent extra details for their liturgies, and if they can get the approval of the authorities for those experiments, then everything is kosher. The problem is that the approval of the pope or the bishops is not the only requirement here, and it never was. Not even the pope has the authority to do what he pleases with the Mass. He is its custodian and steward; never its author.

​But as the Mass is and has always been changed by means of addition and omitting this or that, always with the approval of the papacy, certainly a liturgical reform is within the Pope's power? As again, the Council stated, the Novus Ordo is not a "new Mass", but rather a reform of the Mass.

[Papist]

[veritasluxmea]

If the pope allows it then it is OK by definition. And that is where the reformers truly departed from Tradition, because that is not the Catholic way.

What would you say is? 

[Nihil Obstat]

​But as the Mass is and has always been changed by means of addition and omitting this or that, always with the approval of the papacy, certainly a liturgical reform is within the Pope's power? As again, the Council stated, the Novus Ordo is not a "new Mass", but rather a reform of the Mass.

The pope is essentially a caretaker of the Mass. Prudent, and by definition minor pruning and additions are both acceptable and necessary. Additions of feast days, elimination of dubious inclusions, etc. Reforms are possible and occasionally necessary, but this could not possibly include the ex nihilo creation of a new missal.

Not sure where you are getting that from about the Novus Ordo not being a new Mass. The Council could not have said such a thing because the Pauline Mass did not exist until after the close of the Council. But frankly it is self-evidently a new Mass. Yes we can debate on whether or not it constitutes a new rite entirely or if it belongs to the Roman Rite (and that is a very different discussion), but clearly it is a new Mass.

​

What would you say is? 

​To put it as shortly as possible, organic development in the fullest sense of the term. The Mass is living Tradition. It is a thing alive, and in many of its aspects directly inspired. In other aspects it has been handed down from holy popes and saints. As a living Tradition it has to be respected in its manifoldness, and in humility we have to recognize that the Mass is far greater than any one person, popes included.

[PhuturePriest]

The pope is essentially a caretaker of the Mass. Prudent, and by definition minor pruning and additions are both acceptable and necessary. Additions of feast days, elimination of dubious inclusions, etc. Reforms are possible and occasionally necessary, but this could not possibly include the ex nihilo creation of a new missal.

Not sure where you are getting that from about the Novus Ordo not being a new Mass. The Council could not have said such a thing because the Pauline Mass did not exist until after the close of the Council. But frankly it is self-evidently a new Mass. Yes we can debate on whether or not it constitutes a new rite entirely or if it belongs to the Roman Rite (and that is a very different discussion), but clearly it is a new Mass.

​

 

​To put it as shortly as possible, organic development in the fullest sense of the term. The Mass is living Tradition. It is a thing alive, and in many of its aspects directly inspired. In other aspects it has been handed down from holy popes and saints. As a living Tradition it has to be respected in its manifoldness, and in humility we have to recognize that the Mass is far greater than any one person, popes included.

​I misspoke concerning the Council, so thank you for pointing it out.

I have been to five or six consecutive Tridentine Masses in the past month and a half, and the Masses look very much identical. There are of course notable differences other than language, such as kneeling far more often throughout the Tridentine, what appears to be a blessing of the scriptures near the beginning with incense before reading them, etc. But they are, essentially, the same Mass. This is why the Church calls them Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form -- they are different forms of the same Mass.

[Nihil Obstat]

​I misspoke concerning the Council, so thank you for pointing it out.

I have been to five or six consecutive Tridentine Masses in the past month and a half, and the Masses look very much identical. There are of course notable differences other than language, such as kneeling far more often throughout the Tridentine, what appears to be a blessing of the scriptures near the beginning with incense before reading them, etc. But they are, essentially, the same Mass. This is why the Church calls them Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form -- they are different forms of the same Mass.

​It is not really about how they look. It is about the content. Legally they are the same rite, yes. There can and should be discussion on how the Novus Ordo fits among the myriad liturgical families qua liturgy.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[veritasluxmea]

Anything you would like to add Puella?  

The pope is essentially a caretaker of the Mass. Prudent, and by definition minor pruning and additions are both acceptable and necessary. Additions of feast days, elimination of dubious inclusions, etc. Reforms are possible and occasionally necessary, but this could not possibly include the ex nihilo creation of a new missal.

Not sure where you are getting that from about the Novus Ordo not being a new Mass. The Council could not have said such a thing because the Pauline Mass did not exist until after the close of the Council. But frankly it is self-evidently a new Mass. Yes we can debate on whether or not it constitutes a new rite entirely or if it belongs to the Roman Rite (and that is a very different discussion), but clearly it is a new Mass.

​

 

​To put it as shortly as possible, organic development in the fullest sense of the term. The Mass is living Tradition. It is a thing alive, and in many of its aspects directly inspired. In other aspects it has been handed down from holy popes and saints. As a living Tradition it has to be respected in its manifoldness, and in humility we have to recognize that the Mass is far greater than any one person, popes included.

​That makes sense; but I see the reforms of Vat II (such as mass in English and so on) as an extension of the pope's guardianship. Things like having the mass ad orientem and Benedict's encouragement of liturgical traditions and sacred music and so on are other examples (specifically a response to combat liturgical abuse). And, yes, the Pope does have the authority to create a new missal. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Anything you would like to add Puella?  

​That makes sense; but I see the reforms of Vat II (such as mass in English and so on) as an extension of the pope's guardianship. Things like having the mass ad orientem and Benedict's encouragement of liturgical traditions and sacred music and so on are other examples (specifically a response to combat liturgical abuse). And, yes, the Pope does have the authority to create a new missal. 

Some parts sure, some I would disagree. ​And I said a new missal ex nihilo. Such a creation is, from my understanding, totally unprecedented in the history of the Church. Compiling a missal based on unwritten traditions and preexisting liturgies certainly. Creating an entirely new Mass out of nothing simply has not happened. Or, in the few cases where it was done, it was by obvious and recognized heretics, and therefore does not form a part of the Church's liturgical tradition. One example would be the heretical Gallican Masses around the time of the revolution.

[veritasluxmea]

Some parts sure, some I would disagree. ​And I said a new missal ex nihilo. Such a creation is, from my understanding, totally unprecedented in the history of the Church. Compiling a missal based on unwritten traditions and preexisting liturgies certainly. Creating an entirely new Mass out of nothing simply has not happened. Or, in the few cases where it was done, it was by obvious and recognized heretics, and therefore does not form a part of the Church's liturgical tradition. One example would be the heretical Gallican Masses around the time of the revolution.

​It sounds like now this is coming down to an issue of authority? Or I might just be misunderstanding you. 

[Nihil Obstat]

​It sounds like now this is coming down to an issue of authority? Or I might just be misunderstanding you. 

​I think you are misunderstanding me. Authority is necessary but not sufficient concerning liturgical reforms.