![]() Even to entertain the possibility is to doubt the Gift of the Keys to Peter. I do not believe that it is possible for the Pope to approve an actually invalid liturgy, however flawed it might be in other respects. I mention that Liturgy because it is the most extreme case possible while still preserving validity:Įn./wiki/Divine_Liturgy_of_Addai_and_Mari Let me be more precise still - I believe that the Pope has the authority tomorrow, if he so pleased, to declare the Liturgy of Addai and Mari the sole liturgical form for the universal Church, although it would clearly be a disastrous mistake to do so, and that all Catholics would be bound to accept his decision in practice while seeking to have it amended through the correct channels. It is IMHO absolutely incompatible with Catholicism to say that it doesn't matter what the Pope thinks about the liturgy. Let's be absolutely clear on this - I believe the Pope has the authority to change the liturgy as he pleases whether or not he acts wisely in doing so is another matter, and if he is mistaken we have the right, and under certain circumstances the duty, to criticise him and try to persuade him to remedy his mistake, but he remains the Pope. At this stage I would sooner take advice from the Moonies. The Vatican has destroyed the Roman liturgy to such an extent that I couldn't really care less what it decrees on the matter. I accept their right to do so to force traditionalist priests to celebrate the NO would necessitate double standards, unless you also propose to force NO priests to celebrate the TLM. I've asked many doctrinally orthodox priests to celebrate the TLM and they refused point blank. There is no shortage of conservative priests who HATE the TLM. I never said that Traditionalists are the only Catholics who matter, but they are far more likely to be scandalized by a biritual priest (speaking objectively) than an average Catholic by a priest who refuses to say the TLM. Even a black Mass can be perfectly valid that doesn't mean priests should be forced to celebrate them. All that's needed for validity is matter, form (words of consecration) and intention. Disliking the Novus Ordo or even hating it does NOT mean rejecting its validity. Traditionalist priests should not be forced to celebrate the NO. Am I mistaken? If so at what point would you draw the line? You claim that you don't believe the Pope has the authority to do what he wants with the liturgy, but you accept the legitimacy of the NO and I strongly suspect you would comply with any liturgical alteration that the Pope ordered, regardless of how far it varied from the liturgical tradition, so long as the words of consecration were retained. (Not that it should really matter what Pope Benedict thinks about the liturgy.) Even Fr Z believes this, and believes the pope does too. Objectively they are clearly seperate rites. Hibernicus, the TLM and the NO are only the same rite in a juridical sense. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |