Card. Cupich named to Congregation for Divine Worship
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Thank you for clarifying. Given that we're discussing Cardinal Cupich and Pope Francis, and your generally dim view of the authority of the Papacy, one could be forgiven for think that the Peter Principle was something to do with sycophantically enforcing the instructions of a power-drunk pope.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Elmar
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    "They ignored it" Oh? I thought they used it extensively as a source of cut and paste snippets. That and the other ancient sacramentaries.


    I've written a number of times on this forum that the rites of the Paschal Vigil as observed in the missal of St Paul VI have nothing to do whatsoever with any Christian liturgy hitherto celebrated as such; this goes for any time a sacrament is celebrated inside of the Mass with the sole exception of holy orders. (In the Byzantine rite, baptisms are after one of the entrances, but before any of the rest of the liturgy goes on…) Now, you could say that this came with Inter Œcumenici and not the work of the Consilium's final members. Fine, but it carried over into the NO despite having no precedent whatsoever. The Gelasian Sacramentary and the missal of Saint Pius V agree on how the fire, the Exultet, the prophecies, the baptismal ceremonies, and the Mass are largely supposed to unfold; nothing is stuffed into a Mass that unusually begins with the fire.

    I don't think that you actually gain anything by "but actually"-ing me over the fact that the ancient manuscripts were used as a source of cutting-and-pasting as well as editing, which I acknowledged; they still ignored the actual placement and indeed the original plan to keep prayers together and in the right season, if not on the day respected in the most manuscripts (and usually also in the missal of Saint Pius V).
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    Given that we're discussing Cardinal Cupich and Pope Francis, and your generally dim view of the authority of the Papacy, one could be forgiven for think that the Peter Principle was something to do with sycophantically enforcing the instructions of a power-drunk pope.


    From your mouth to God's ears.

    I fully accept the papacy as it existed in the first thousand years of Christianity. I don't accept the pope as a Renaissance monarch which has become the case in the west.

    I would also add that for those of you attached to the Traditional Rite from Trent, you may have to part with this pope and go your own way to preserve that liturgy if he continues on his current path.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Charles,

    The problem with sycophantic cardinals is that one of them may be elected pope. I've heard it said that God gives us the Pope we deserve, which might tell us something about how His Holiness came to be in the See of Peter.

    On the other hand, St. Pius V was elected, if I recall, because he was so frail that he couldn't possibly do any harm. Look at the good that came from him. Or, look at St. John XXIII, who initiated the Second Vatican Council, and whatever good came from him.

    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    My long-time pastor - may his memory be eternal - stated that John XXIII had to spend extra time in Purgatory closing the windows he had opened.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,164
    Ahh, but John XXIII is now a saint.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    Ahh, but John XXIII is now a saint.
    The Roman Church canonises the person (perhaps infallibly) not his works, of course whether the orthodox / Eastern rites recognise him as a saint is another matter.

    Some Anglicans / Anglo-catholics venerate King Charles I as a saint...
    Thanked by 4CharlesW M. Jackson Osborn StimsonInRehab ServiamScores
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980

    Some Anglicans / Anglo-catholics venerate King Charles I as a saint...


    Some Orthodox venerate him, too.

    Ahh, but John XXIII is now a saint.


    One can be saintly and still be incompetent and a bungler.

    Thanked by 7tomjaw StimsonInRehab ServiamScores Salieri M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen francis
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Popes shouldn't be canonized until everyone who lived through their papacy is a hundred years dead. Popes already are allotted near god-like status by most Catholics, canonizing them means canonizing everything that they did, said, thought, including their incompetence.

    The Novus Ordo is irreformable because Paul VI is canonized. Everyone, including Paul VI, thought that getting rid of the Octave of Pentecost was a mistake: but he's canonized now, so even suggesting such a minor reform of the Calendar is considered almost apostasy, at the very least, one is accused of being a Rad Trad who hates Vatican II.
    Thanked by 5tomjaw LauraKaz francis CCooze Chris Garton-Zavesky
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,888
    The Novus Ordo is irreformable because Paul VI is canonized.

    Hot take: I suspect this is the very reason why his canonization was rushed through so quickly…



    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    (To be clear: I’m not saying that the man doesn’t enjoy the beatific vision and is thereby ipso facto a saint; I’m just observing that I believe there was a grander agenda at play for his (and JPII’s) rapid canonizations.)
    Thanked by 8Salieri CharlesW trentonjconn tomjaw LauraKaz francis CCooze Chris Garton-Zavesky
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,414
    A fellow in good and royal company with Charles ! is Karl, the last emperor of Austria-Hungary, the difference being that one was Catholic and one wasn't. John-Paul canonized Karl in 1992. The funeral in all its imperial trappings and Hapsburg glory of Karl's wife, Zita, can be seen on the internet. Karl might have ruled in peace but for the meddling of that sniveling twit, Woodrow Wilson.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CharlesW
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    The Lansing note was not the proximate cause of the end of Karl's rule. The reality was that the empire was going to fall apart due to internal divisions that the foolish declaration of war by the previous emperor accelerated irrevocably. Karl was probably more popular as a dethroned monarch, and certainly much more useful for Admiral Horthy in that capacity. (And how people forget that of the major party candidates in 1916, Wilson was the least in favor of war. TR, who removed himself from candidacy, was most pro-war, and the GOP's stance was more belligerent than Wilson's. So, if Wilson had been defeated, US meddling in Europe was even more likely.)

    In any event, there are lots of potentially partly-unsavory saints whose canonizations could be undone, hardly limited to the last 60 years, under certain theories....

    But it won't thereby change liturgical music.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    Wilson's still the one who is responsible for what we got in 1918 though. Nothing about 1912 or 1916 can excuse that.
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn tomjaw
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    What the *USA* got in 1918 and ensuing years was pretty freackin' amazing *by worldly standards* of most times. (That is not a paean to Wilson.) The USA and Japan were the lone Major Powers who came away from that war in a better place as compared to before it. One of the most critical analyses to come out of the centenary of that war:

    https://adamtooze.com/the-deluge/
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    as if that was universally good? In any case, republican Austria(-Hungary) is bad.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    So you assert.

    But regardless of the truth or falsity of it, it has no bearing on canonizations or liturgical music.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    (as if this forum never strays off-topic…)

    It's not really about what I assert, or don't. The American empire is a disaster and profoundly anti-Catholic, and the elimination of the Habsburgs set up, if not total instability in Austria, then the conditions for it, once the Nazis resorted to assassinating the chancellor, Dollfuß, in 1934. It's one thing to kill a politician; it's quite another to have to kill the emperor, or king, or whatever Karl would have been.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw M. Jackson Osborn
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    Not since at least 1649 in the West. After that point all monarchs’ sacrality was beginning to be politically contingent. Even in places where it formally wasn’t. Heck, while mobs decapitated the French monarchs, just 2 years later 3 erstwhile sacred emperors themselves connived in the extinguishing of the monarch of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Yea they took three bites before they finished that juicy apple but sacrality did not stop themselves. Napoleon then applied that practice to rearranging much of Europe. Restoration was clearly a human creation and Western monarchies remained contingent thereafter.
Add a Comment