The Roman Rite is the Liturgy of St Peter. The Pope has no right to change or otherwise tamper with that which is of apostolic origin, or venerable additions made by the promptings of the Holy Ghost over the course of centuries.
Popes aren’t divinely inspired. They have the assistance of the Holy Ghost. It has not been taught that popes enjoy Inspiration, or at least not that I’m aware of.
“…the Church has received from on high a promise which guarantees her against every human weakness. What does it matter that the helm of the symbolic barque has been entrusted to feeble hands, when the Divine Pilot stands on the bridge, where, though invisible, He is watching and ruling?” (LeoXIII, allocution to Cardinals, March 20, 1900; excerpted in Papal Teachings:The Church, p. 349.)
“The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized.” (Pius XII, Mediator Dei, n50)
Pius XII was a modernist, as is indicated by what you quoted from Mediator Dei. (I could cite much worse examples.) The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the Rite of St Peter. While subsequent popes added saints to the canon, and subsequent prayers were added which became codified by immemorial custom, nobody dared change or delete any elements of the liturgy, until the Great Architect during the pontificate of Pius XII, especially as regards Holy Week. The Mass, meanwhile, exists not only in time, but eternity. At each Mass Our Lord Jesus Christ, Eternal High Priest, offers Himself as Propitiation and Victim for our innumerable sins. So exactly what concerning "age, circumstance, and the good of souls" could change that would require alterations to the Sublime Liturgy, given to us by the Holy Ghost, who "killed" the three languages Pilate had posted over Our Lord Jesus Christ while He hung upon the Blessed Wood of the Holy Cross? Or have you not read that "Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us [Ecclesiastes 1:10] 11 There is no remembrance of former things: nor indeed of those things which hereafter are to come, shall there be any remembrance with them that shall be in the latter end."
Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Faith are the same, yesterday, today, and forever.
I’m referring to accidentals, Wolf. Everyone knows the Mass can’t substantially change. Do you not know the diversity of the Eastern Rites? The Ambrosian Rite, the Byzantine rite? Are these the workings of ancient modernists? Plus, before St. Pius V codified the Roman Right, let’s just say you would not have approved… and Rite of St. Peter? Sounds plausible—the canon is of apostolic origin—but the Latin Church uses the Latin Rite.
As clearly shown by history, there are indeed multiple ways of expressing the exact same truth without deviating in essence. Why are you satisfied with any change? Might as well try to reconstruct the Divine Liturgy from the earlier ages.
“subsequent popes added saints to the canon, and subsequent prayers were added which became codified by immemorial custom.” Ya, and what does this mean? What makes an ‘immemorial custom?’ You put yourself in a logic trap. Popes can’t add anything to the liturgy expect if it’s been around for a while, then it’s okay. The popes added feasts, rubrical changes, and the like, clearly demonstrates the same thing that ‘modernist’ Pius XII said: “the human components admit of various modifications.”
You must admit that the Mass can change in its accidentals.
I think the solution to this conundrum is to reflect very carefully on what is, and what is not, organic development. A big question, yes, but here's a stab at it:
Your videos are too pedagogical. Forgotten is the fact that the Most Sacred Liturgy is first and foremost the work of the Holy Ghost. As regards the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is an Eternal Action by Our Lord Jesus Christ High Priest. We "participate" at Mass even less than the fans in the upper decks pf the stadium in the action of a National Football league game. Truly the best way to hear Mass is through praying the Most Holy Rosary. Even Pius X, with his emphasis on vernacular missals, got it wrong. The Missal Thumpers are so worried they have the "wrong Mass", or have "lost their place", or find the prayers tedious, or are rushing to keep apace with the Priest. tragic.
I will look into those videos later, but I do have a question: who’s to say that Popes have to follow organic development. Having supreme, full, immediate, (you know the drill) jurisdiction doesn’t seem to have any qualifiers to what can and cannot be done. Plus, some person would need to remind others that the pope has gone off the rails. Even if you are clinging to the past, you are effectively judging the Pope by judging his ordinances unlawful. As was [in]famously said, “the Pope speaks, You decide!”
It's not as "cut and dried" as you make it out to be. Catholic theology and tradition make clear the limits of what popes can and cannot do. Here's the most succinct treatment of this:
An Immemorial Custom is simply a practice whose origins have become lost in the "fog of history" and no documentation exists as to when the practice was introduced.
The Holy Liturgy can of course undergo ADDITIONS, as opposed to CHANGE. Even studied liturgists like Adrian Fortesque admitted the Roman Rite has "insoluable dilemmas". I do disagree with some of the implementations of Pius V. I do think that some of the sequences, such as those for the feast of Michaelmass and All Saints should be restored. Just simply dismissing them because they were less than two hundred years did violence to the development of the liturgy. But subsequent popes seemed much more interested in standing armies and novel philosophies- to say nothing of their pecadillos- to give much attention to the matter.
Our Lord Himself requested the Feast of the Sacred Heart, and Fatima seems to call for the feast of the Immaculate Heart. On the other hand, the Christmas cycle is too cluttered with modern feasts, and the Feast of the Epiphany has lost pride of place.
The Bogus Ordo is a fraud, an imposture, and an Abomination of Desolation. It is patently invalid, but most certainly illicit, constituting false worship. It's origin is in the Freemasonic Lodges of France in the 1850's, from which it made its way to Bavaria and Prussia later in the century, to be finally developed by men such as Odo Casel, under the watchful eye of Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who all the while pretended none of this was going on.
Meanwhile, the popes of old made a solemn oath to hand down what they had received, to change nothing impinging on the Holy Faith. Holy Mother Church is not a diktat where a TinPot Pope enforces his preferences.
I am familiar with the diversity of the Eastern Rites, which all originate with the Liturgy of St John the Apostle. (While the Gallic Rites are from the liturgy of St James the Greater.) But one must admit the Eastern Rites have been somewhat polluted and somewhat inculturated. They lack the grandeur of the Roman Rite.
Now that’s a bold statement. To say the Eastern Rites lacks the grandeur of the Roman is mad. Seems like you would have preferred that they never existed. Clearly it is willed by God by the fact that it thrived through the centuries.
“The Churches of the East are worthy of the glory and reverence that they hold throughout the whole of Christendom in virtue of those extremely ancient, singular memorials that they have bequeathed to us.”
Orientalium Dignitas, Leo XIII. You should read the rest of it to know the mind of the Church on this matter.
Or are you going to say that Leo XIII is a modernist because he doesn’t agree with you?
Whether Leo XIII was a modernist is a lively matter of dispute. Unlike Pius IX or Pius X, I have no evidence he was enrolled in a Masonic Lodge, so I will give him that. As you know, Leo XIII had the Byzantine Blessing of the EPiphany Water adapted to the Roman Rite, which I attended many times while at the SSPX. But none of the negates the experience I have had with the TRADITIONAL Eastern Rites (The reformed ones are basically the Bogus Ordo with Icons.) But even when said in Classical Greek or the Old Slavonic (a language, interestingly enough, that the Holy Ghost "killed") one does feel as though transported back in time to the rustic villages of the Ukraine, or the hills of Romania, where the people are getting ready to tend flocks or harvest grain.
Now don't misunderstand me at all. I have a great respect for the Mystery which goes on behind the Iconostasis, and I think the Roman Rite could profit immensely by the return of Gothic Roodscreens, which were very similar. The Mysteries of Our Faith should evoke tremulous fear, something lost with the casual celebration of the Roman Missal, especially that aberrition given the moniker "Low Mass" which was an accommodation to Protestant conditions, and should never have become the norm, except for private Masses on side altars.
Had the Roman Rite retained its venerable traditions, all this talk about the Bogus Ordo Happy Meal would have been well nigh impossible. The Italian Grandmothers would have been calling for the drawing and quartering of any priest or prelate unhappily "celebrating" the Abomination of Desolation in their presence.
So no it was never my intention to belittle the venerable liturgy of St John. It shows that our church is indeed Apostolic and also that the Pope would do an act of insufferable in intolerable violence to Holy Mother Church were he to suggest the complete abolition of the Eastern Rites, an act which would be rightly resisted by the Faithful as harmful to souls and an affront to the mystery and majesty of the Thrice Holy Godhead.
The Roman Rite is the Liturgy of St Peter. The Pope has no right to change or otherwise tamper with that which is of apostolic origin, or venerable additions made by the promptings of the Holy Ghost over the course of centuries.
Popes aren’t divinely inspired. They have the assistance of the Holy Ghost. It has not been taught that popes enjoy Inspiration, or at least not that I’m aware of.
“…the Church has received from on high a promise which guarantees her against every human weakness. What does it matter that the helm of the symbolic barque has been entrusted to feeble hands, when the Divine Pilot stands on the bridge, where, though invisible, He is watching and ruling?” (LeoXIII, allocution to Cardinals, March 20, 1900; excerpted in Papal Teachings:The Church, p. 349.)
“The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized.” (Pius XII, Mediator Dei, n50)
Guidance is different from inspiration
Pius XII was a modernist, as is indicated by what you quoted from Mediator Dei. (I could cite much worse examples.) The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the Rite of St Peter. While subsequent popes added saints to the canon, and subsequent prayers were added which became codified by immemorial custom, nobody dared change or delete any elements of the liturgy, until the Great Architect during the pontificate of Pius XII, especially as regards Holy Week. The Mass, meanwhile, exists not only in time, but eternity. At each Mass Our Lord Jesus Christ, Eternal High Priest, offers Himself as Propitiation and Victim for our innumerable sins. So exactly what concerning "age, circumstance, and the good of souls" could change that would require alterations to the Sublime Liturgy, given to us by the Holy Ghost, who "killed" the three languages Pilate had posted over Our Lord Jesus Christ while He hung upon the Blessed Wood of the Holy Cross? Or have you not read that "Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us [Ecclesiastes 1:10] 11 There is no remembrance of former things: nor indeed of those things which hereafter are to come, shall there be any remembrance with them that shall be in the latter end."
Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Faith are the same, yesterday, today, and forever.
I’m referring to accidentals, Wolf. Everyone knows the Mass can’t substantially change. Do you not know the diversity of the Eastern Rites? The Ambrosian Rite, the Byzantine rite? Are these the workings of ancient modernists? Plus, before St. Pius V codified the Roman Right, let’s just say you would not have approved… and Rite of St. Peter? Sounds plausible—the canon is of apostolic origin—but the Latin Church uses the Latin Rite.
As clearly shown by history, there are indeed multiple ways of expressing the exact same truth without deviating in essence. Why are you satisfied with any change? Might as well try to reconstruct the Divine Liturgy from the earlier ages.
“subsequent popes added saints to the canon, and subsequent prayers were added which became codified by immemorial custom.” Ya, and what does this mean? What makes an ‘immemorial custom?’ You put yourself in a logic trap. Popes can’t add anything to the liturgy expect if it’s been around for a while, then it’s okay. The popes added feasts, rubrical changes, and the like, clearly demonstrates the same thing that ‘modernist’ Pius XII said: “the human components admit of various modifications.”
You must admit that the Mass can change in its accidentals.
I think the solution to this conundrum is to reflect very carefully on what is, and what is not, organic development. A big question, yes, but here's a stab at it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT5BfyO7qOk&ab_channel=PeterKwasniewski
and another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxwulMs8XZw&t=1011s&ab_channel=MassoftheAges
Your videos are too pedagogical. Forgotten is the fact that the Most Sacred Liturgy is first and foremost the work of the Holy Ghost. As regards the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is an Eternal Action by Our Lord Jesus Christ High Priest. We "participate" at Mass even less than the fans in the upper decks pf the stadium in the action of a National Football league game. Truly the best way to hear Mass is through praying the Most Holy Rosary. Even Pius X, with his emphasis on vernacular missals, got it wrong. The Missal Thumpers are so worried they have the "wrong Mass", or have "lost their place", or find the prayers tedious, or are rushing to keep apace with the Priest. tragic.
I will look into those videos later, but I do have a question: who’s to say that Popes have to follow organic development. Having supreme, full, immediate, (you know the drill) jurisdiction doesn’t seem to have any qualifiers to what can and cannot be done. Plus, some person would need to remind others that the pope has gone off the rails. Even if you are clinging to the past, you are effectively judging the Pope by judging his ordinances unlawful. As was [in]famously said, “the Pope speaks, You decide!”
It's not as "cut and dried" as you make it out to be. Catholic theology and tradition make clear the limits of what popes can and cannot do. Here's the most succinct treatment of this:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-popes-boundenness-to-tradition-as.html
But see also:
https://onepeterfive.com/papal-authority-liturgy-dialogue/
I think these will give you a lot to think about.
An Immemorial Custom is simply a practice whose origins have become lost in the "fog of history" and no documentation exists as to when the practice was introduced.
The Holy Liturgy can of course undergo ADDITIONS, as opposed to CHANGE. Even studied liturgists like Adrian Fortesque admitted the Roman Rite has "insoluable dilemmas". I do disagree with some of the implementations of Pius V. I do think that some of the sequences, such as those for the feast of Michaelmass and All Saints should be restored. Just simply dismissing them because they were less than two hundred years did violence to the development of the liturgy. But subsequent popes seemed much more interested in standing armies and novel philosophies- to say nothing of their pecadillos- to give much attention to the matter.
Our Lord Himself requested the Feast of the Sacred Heart, and Fatima seems to call for the feast of the Immaculate Heart. On the other hand, the Christmas cycle is too cluttered with modern feasts, and the Feast of the Epiphany has lost pride of place.
The Bogus Ordo is a fraud, an imposture, and an Abomination of Desolation. It is patently invalid, but most certainly illicit, constituting false worship. It's origin is in the Freemasonic Lodges of France in the 1850's, from which it made its way to Bavaria and Prussia later in the century, to be finally developed by men such as Odo Casel, under the watchful eye of Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who all the while pretended none of this was going on.
Meanwhile, the popes of old made a solemn oath to hand down what they had received, to change nothing impinging on the Holy Faith. Holy Mother Church is not a diktat where a TinPot Pope enforces his preferences.
I am familiar with the diversity of the Eastern Rites, which all originate with the Liturgy of St John the Apostle. (While the Gallic Rites are from the liturgy of St James the Greater.) But one must admit the Eastern Rites have been somewhat polluted and somewhat inculturated. They lack the grandeur of the Roman Rite.
Now that’s a bold statement. To say the Eastern Rites lacks the grandeur of the Roman is mad. Seems like you would have preferred that they never existed. Clearly it is willed by God by the fact that it thrived through the centuries.
“The Churches of the East are worthy of the glory and reverence that they hold throughout the whole of Christendom in virtue of those extremely ancient, singular memorials that they have bequeathed to us.”
Orientalium Dignitas, Leo XIII. You should read the rest of it to know the mind of the Church on this matter.
Or are you going to say that Leo XIII is a modernist because he doesn’t agree with you?
Whether Leo XIII was a modernist is a lively matter of dispute. Unlike Pius IX or Pius X, I have no evidence he was enrolled in a Masonic Lodge, so I will give him that. As you know, Leo XIII had the Byzantine Blessing of the EPiphany Water adapted to the Roman Rite, which I attended many times while at the SSPX. But none of the negates the experience I have had with the TRADITIONAL Eastern Rites (The reformed ones are basically the Bogus Ordo with Icons.) But even when said in Classical Greek or the Old Slavonic (a language, interestingly enough, that the Holy Ghost "killed") one does feel as though transported back in time to the rustic villages of the Ukraine, or the hills of Romania, where the people are getting ready to tend flocks or harvest grain.
Now don't misunderstand me at all. I have a great respect for the Mystery which goes on behind the Iconostasis, and I think the Roman Rite could profit immensely by the return of Gothic Roodscreens, which were very similar. The Mysteries of Our Faith should evoke tremulous fear, something lost with the casual celebration of the Roman Missal, especially that aberrition given the moniker "Low Mass" which was an accommodation to Protestant conditions, and should never have become the norm, except for private Masses on side altars.
Had the Roman Rite retained its venerable traditions, all this talk about the Bogus Ordo Happy Meal would have been well nigh impossible. The Italian Grandmothers would have been calling for the drawing and quartering of any priest or prelate unhappily "celebrating" the Abomination of Desolation in their presence.
So no it was never my intention to belittle the venerable liturgy of St John. It shows that our church is indeed Apostolic and also that the Pope would do an act of insufferable in intolerable violence to Holy Mother Church were he to suggest the complete abolition of the Eastern Rites, an act which would be rightly resisted by the Faithful as harmful to souls and an affront to the mystery and majesty of the Thrice Holy Godhead.
I said the wrong Right, I meant to say Roman Rite.
Caw-Caw