Voxx wrote:
The question is...did He have the Authority to directly Change the Mass.
I would assert no
and further assert his actions ( unwittingly) opened the door tonthe Novus Ordo. I know Pacelli and I disagree on this.
Hi Voxx,
To your first question, yes, certainly the Pope has the power to modify the rites of the Church and to create new rites. The Pope is the living Apostle, Peter's successor, and there is absolutely no debate about this point. You will find no source to support this idea. It's a made up traditionalist error, that has been around for decades, and hopefully, our discussion can finally put an end to it.
This is from Mediator Dei:
If you read from the many theologians, they will all say the same. The history of the Roman rite also shows this as plain as day. The Popes have made changes to the rites of the Church, including the mass, as needed, throughout Church history. What the Pope cannot do is change the rite into something against the Faith, and these changes under Pope Pius XII certainly didn't in any way contradict the Faith. Interestingly enough, even the most vehement critics of these laws of the Church do not go this far in their claims, so that much is at least not in dispute.
Voxx wrote:
To be honest with you, until very recently, I did not know we did not agree on this, or that you held this thinking. I am surprised, and I am hoping that I can change your mind, and I am asking you as a Catholic and as your friend to rethink this and hear me out as to what I will say. From my experience, Catholics of the eastern rites are not adherents to this type of thinking which came directly from a traditionalist error by drawing incorrect conclusions after the
Novus Ordo came along, so that only further adds to my surprise. Whoever introduced these ideas to you has done you a great disservice. I am asking you, my friend, to keep an open mind, read my
last post in its entirety, and to pray and rethink this. This is a dangerous error.
The people that assert things like you mentioned above are making a judgment, that it. There is no evidence that the Church's laws of the 1950's led to the
Novus Ordo. It is all based on their opinion of what they think, and I am going to hope to show you that this thinking is not only not correct, but it is grounded in evil as it is directly at odds with a Catholic's duty to trust the Pope, and to trust the Church. These people, in their arrogance, place their judgment over that of the Pope, and secondly, they think that the Church can give us evil, even if it's just a step by step process and not directly, as if the Church can be like a poisoner who instead of giving a fatal dose, does it incrementally, making a person get gradually sicker, until he strikes to finish off his victim. Such is not the Catholic Church. Could anyone ever trust such an organization? Is this really Christ's Church? I am sure you know the answer.
So, let's be clear on one thing. We don't reject the
Novus Ordo for its changes, in and of itself, we reject it because the rite itself is directly at odds with the theology of the mass. If you haven't ever carefully read the study published against the
Novus Ordo by the group of theologians, known as the "Ottaviani Intervention," I would urge you to do so. There is so much confusion on these matters, and it's good to get this sorted out.
The
Novus Ordo is a different animal altogether. It's a radical new rite, that introduced a new theology and changes to the texts that very much may invalidate it, and at a minimum altered the theology so significantly as to depart from the theological basis of the mass, so clearly taught by the Council of Trent. The other changes that came from the
Novus Ordo, such as lay participation, revisions of non-essential prayers, responses, the use of the vernacular, etc. are not the issue. This is what is being combated here, conflating non-essentials that were changed by Pius XII to essentials, the theology of the mass itself, that was changed by Paul VI, and then pretending that one led to the other.
Catholics are not permitted to form judgments against the Pope's decisions, and they are required to trust the Pope's judgment. This is directly taught by St. Pius X, who left no room for dispute on this. Those that attack Pope Pius XII laws, which by the way, are not truly his laws, as these are the laws of the Catholic Church itself, that are being attacked. Once Pope Pius XII promulgated these laws, they by that fact became the law of the Church. So, let's not mince words here, those that attack these laws, or say that they led to evil, are not merely attacking the judgment of Pope Pius XII, they are attacking the laws of the Catholic Church itself. This movement, disguised as orthodox and traditional, is nothing of the sort, it's an attack against the foundations of the Church itself.
It would not be disrespectful, however for anyone to write to a future Pope privately and to ask him to look again at these laws, and give him reasons that one believes that he may modify or replace them, and then accept his decision whatever it may be. The Church can always adapt to the new age, and make changes as needed, but what we cannot and must not do is attack the laws of the Church in any time and any age.
For all the folks that try to tie in the laws of the Catholic Church and make these laws a stepping stone to something evil, that in reality came from outside the Church, they are misguided, and these assertions are rooted in a distrust of the Church itself. The Church doesn't give us bad fruit. The Church does not give us stones rather than bread. This is why Catholics must give the Pope the level of trust that Pope St. Pius X ordered us too, as it is impossible for the Church to lead us astray, even if it not directly, and it is only in steps. This is why Pope Pius XII said that these changes that led to new laws of the Church came from a movement of the Holy Ghost. Was he blaspheming? Of course not. Clearly, the people attacking these laws are not believing a Pope Pius XII, and in reality, they are not believing the principles explained in
Mediator Dei, which also teaches this.
Nothing that Pope Pius XII promulgated in the laws he made has anything to do with the theological problems of the
Novus Ordo, not a single thing, they are apples and oranges. Pope St. Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII were reforming the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that's a fact, but they were making something beautiful and good, not something dark and evil, or that would later lead to evil. It was like they were sculptors carving out a beautiful statue that would take decades to complete, but when they died, an intruder came and defaced it.
Yes, it's the same statue, as far as the material used, but that is it, there is no other connection between the beautiful creation being worked on and the mutilated end result. The sculptors who were making it for decades died, and once the intruder came, he carved it up and mutilated it, making it into something that was grotesque. Paul VI was the intruder and what he did has no connection to what Pope Pius X, XI and XII did. He ruined something that was good and beautiful.
This is what happened in the Catholic Church, and this is the only interpretation that follows the principles that we are obligated to follow as taught by St.Pius X. The laws of the Catholic Church cannot lead to evil and impiety. We must trust the Pope, trust the Church, and never entertain suspicions that Her laws will lead us to something evil or lead us to impiety. If this was true that the Church could do this, would a Catholic ever be able to trust the Church and its Supreme Pastor as sheep trust their shepherds? If this was true, then Catholics would always be needing to have suspicion and doubt as to the judgments of the Popes and the laws they promulgate, and always wondering if unwittingly they are leading us to the wolf. Catholics would no longer be docile sheep, trusting the Shepherd and following him to Jesus Christ, as they once did. Private judgment, suspicions, and dissent would be the norm.
To be thorough, I will bring up one last point, and an argument that I have seen to attempt to justify rejecting Pope Pius XII's law, i.e. the law of the Catholic Church. I know you did not use this argument, but some do, and as I am hoping to end this, I want to cover all the bases. This argument says that under the principle of cessation of law, that since this law allegedly became harmful, then it has ceased. This argument is bunk. First off, to argue this way, one must throw out all criticism of the law as it first existed, and therefore the dozens of attacks against it by people like Carol Byrne, and so many others. Secondly, no one has ever demonstrated any harm from these laws, whatsoever. It's interesting that even in our times, Catholic chapels, that obey Pius XII's laws, are filled during the Holy Week, and no one has ever shown a single case of harm. Go to the SSPX or CMRI on Holy Week, watch the Catholics being sanctified by the Catholic rite, as approved by Pius XII, and try to show the supposed harm being done to these Catholics. It ain't there.
When people use this argument, all they are doing is saying, "we judge that this law has become harmful, therefore it is." This is an absolute abuse to the concept of a law that was once good causing harm, therefore it ceases. To give an example, of what this concept covers, if a Pope bound Catholics to give up all meat during Lent, and then there was shortages of fish, and the plants used for food had a very bad crop, and the only food that could be found in the quantity to sustain people was meat, then, in this case, the law which was once good, as it obliged penance, is now causing harm. This is not in any way the same as the laws of the 1950's, as they were good laws, and in no case can anyone point to any harm being done by them being used since then. As I said above, the people asserting this are just making a private biased judgment, that it. They think they know better than the Pope, and they think their judgment is enough to arbitrarily reject the Church's laws.