Support This Website! Shop Here!

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Stirring the Pot

Fr. John Zhulsdorf is a man with a mission. Unfortunately, his mission has very little to do with Catholic Faith. Like Father John Corapi before him, Fr. Z has discovered the secret to making money - get people angry. If they are angry, they will give you money and treats, they will beg you to keep feeding them things that will keep them angry.

When you are angry, you feel powerful, important. You feel like the world should shake at your company, because you shake. We like it when people make us angry, especially if we can be made to think we feel righteous anger. So, Fr. Zuhlsdorf highlights things like this. Then he questions what is happening, as if he has the right to question. And when you see a priest question this, you think you have the right to question it as well.

But you don't have that right. Neither does Rev. John Zuhlsdorf. The Church is not a democracy. As long as the parish boundaries aren't changed, bishop and priest have the right to do whatever they want in a parish. The Church is not a democracy.

There are certain areas where you simply have no rights. Liturgy is one of those areas. Your voice is not only not important, it can be positively scandalous (in the mortal sin sense of the word).

It. Does. Not. Matter. if you like communion on the tongue versus on the hand or if you prefer Raphael to Dali. Liturgy comes from Rome, not from lay people, not from priests, not even from bishops. If Rome approves something, then I have no further right to complain. Period. End of sentence.

This is why I can still kneel and receive in a church that has no altar railings. This is why, technically, a Catholic can demand communion in the hand at a Tridentine Mass. It is permitted. I don't care if you like it. I don't care if I personally hate it. You and I don't have a voice. It is not our business. The Church is not a democracy. The conversation is done.

Bishop does what bishop wants in his own diocese. As long as he is not infringing on anyone's canonical rights, he has complete authority to do whatever he wants. Parishioners do not have a right to decide what they think constitutes a beautiful church (as if you could ever get parishoiners to agree if you were so foolish as to allow them their opinion). That right belongs to the bishop and the bishop alone. He delegates some of this to his pastors, but even there pastors generally have to get all major church changes approved by the bishop's diocesan liturgical committee.

If pastors deign to listen to your opinion, count yourself unusually blessed. They are under no requirement to do so. This is bishop's church, not yours.

Now I am the person who designed every poster at and I have very definite ideas about what kind of art I like. But my opinion is my opinion, and no bishop is under a canonical requirement to listen to me or even to allow me to speak publicly on the matter. I can make known (privately) my thoughts to the pastors, but he is not required to seriously entertain anything I have to say.

As long as no canonical rights are infringed, I have no business yelling about what a pastor is doing in his own church. Rev. Z has the habit of getting outraged about things that are really none of his business. That's why I stopped reading him years ago. All he does is foment dissension. Catholics need to recognize boundaries. Traditionalist Catholics don't like boundaries, they like anger. Rev. John Zuhlsdorf is in the business of stoking anger. Rev. John Zuhlsdorf keeps throwing his opinion around like somebody should care. No one should care. His opinion on church art and fifty cents won't buy you coffee at Starbucks.

But, speaking of coffee, coffee pretty much seems to be the purpose of his blog.

As far as I can tell, his blog exists solely in order to encourage lay people to pay for his bird feed, coffee, sweets, and favorite books. Because most of what he says is not really Catholic, it's just stirring the pot.

He is part of the reason that trads have a reputation of being angry and mean. Trads read him and like him. Trads get angry and yell at or about or around the bishop. Bishop decides he can be treated like this by the secular press - why encourage Catholics who do the same? And thus trads are ignored, relegated to the back burner and treated like red-headed stepchildren. Because all trads do is throw tantrums. They like standing around the pot as it is stirred. And then they cry when it is ladled out to them.


Dave said...

Is it presumptuous and out of line to request altar BOYS at your Novus Ordo funeral and that the women readers and ushers wear skirts or dresses? In other words, a rather FORMAL funeral (which our particular priest does appreciate)? Jews and Protestants will be the main attenders at mine. Since you can request certain music, it seems this might logically follow...

Inca said...

You can request whatever you want.

The priest is free to completely ignore you. There's nothing you can do about it if he does.

Ron Van Wegen said...

So, Fr. Zuhlsdorf highlights things like this. (link not working)

Kevin Tierney said...

Actually..... you're wrong. You can request communion in the hand at the Extraordinary Form, just as you can request it on the hand at an Eastern Catholic parish. That doesn't mean the priest is obligated to give it to you. You see, there's rules surrounding that, which are pretty clear, you have to follow the customs laid down in the 1962 missal. That includes the manner in which communion is received.

As far as saying people don't have the right to make their voices heard, again, you are mistaken. They most certainly DO have that right. You don't have to listen to them. the bishop and the priest doesn't have to listen. They can go along doing horrible yet technically legal things, and ignore everyone.

But everyone is quite free to point this out, even if it makes those prelates look incredibly bad. To suggest otherwise is clericalism.

What's interesting is you nowhere appeal to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the Magesterium, or Canon law to say that Catholics are not allowed to voice their complaints.

Yes, trads have a reputation for being angry and mean. But so do you Steve. I'm frequently told that whatever Kellmeyer advocates, do the opposite, just as I'm told "you know, Christopher West really was a danger to the faith, but jerks like Steve Kellmeyer obscured that message."

Now you may take that with a badge of honor, or you might get all whiny and say something, just like Fr. Z does. Let's be real: the big difference between you and Father Z is several million readers. You guys both push the same anger game. He's just a lot better at it than you are.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Nonsense, Kevin. I am renowned for being sweetness and light. Anyone who says differently has clearly been partaking of the 'shrooms, if you get my meaning.

Besides, I think there's a couple of important differences you are missing - I've never cadged for money on this site, nor have I ever banned someone from commenting, nor even deleted comments. I like a free conversation, where people can speak their mind and disagree with me strenuously. You'll find few sites with that level of freedom.

People may accuse me of many things, but of the vices of prostitution and whine, I remain substantially free.

Aquinas Dad said...

"2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them."

Catholic in Brooklyn said...

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! I am a former traditionalist and I can attest to the truth of everything you say. You have clairified many things for me, and I am very grateful to you. God bless you!

Viva Cristo Rey said...

So you don't like a reverent Mass.

Yea, I've seen jokster priests, sister giving the homily about her nature god, people chewing gum when receiving the Eucharist, and I've seen two people receive the Eucharist in the hand then put Jesus in their pocket.

You can mock Traditional Catholics all you want but I will take them any day over the liturgical dancing clown Masses.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Viva Cristo Rey, when you can explain why your implied "either-or" choice is valid, I'll buy your bilge.

You can't, of course. The Ordinary Form can and is celebrated with reverence and without reference to the Extraordinary Form.

But I don't blame you for your opinion. You're gullible enough to buy into the "either-or" advertising Z. dishes out. That's how Z. rakes in the birdfeed.

Viva Cristo Rey said...

Hi Steve,

Yes the Ordinary Form mass can be celebrated with reverence. I know because I saw it done once by a visiting Priest from Mexico around 1995 at a local parish.

Since then I attend my parish every week, and two other local parishes on occasion.

Gum chewing, women and men in shorts and t-shirts, LOUD talking before and after mass, no genuflecting toward the Tabernacle, talking during Mass, some of the most annoying folk music you ever heard during Mass, homilies about the environment and how the church has abused children, lectors who mumble the readings, priests telling joke after joke, adlibbing where they choose.

OK Steve, I'm patient, I'll keep waiting for another reverent Ordinary form Mass like the one I attended in 1995.

But it does seem funny that our Church is always less than half full.

PS.....My parish must be a parish of Saints because when I go to confession we usually have only one or two people going.

I did try to go to confession at a Latin Mass parish but the lines were to long so I couldn't wait.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Funny - I got tired of the heresy spewed from the ambo by the FSSP priests on most Sundays.

The FSSP parish has been so badly school by these priests that the pastor actually had to publicly chastise the entire congregation about their attitude towards Pope Francis. From the ambo, he said - and I quote - "The Church has survived bad popes before." In other words, he's as close as you can get to being sedevacantist without actually endorsing the position.

The congregation thinks the CCC is not binding, Vatican II is not binding, and further considers themselves the ultimate authorities on most things Catholic.

So, I don't see much difference between the FSSP parish I attend and the Ordinary Form parish you attend.

Kevin Tierney said...

Okay, now I've gotta ask:

How is a realization that we've had bad and even awful popes and survived "as close as you can get to being sedevacantist without actually endorsing the position."

I would think you could get a heck of a lot closer. Such as implying there might be heresey, that his acts lack right authority, that Benedict's resignation was invalid, etc.

You know, like actual sedevacantists or pseudo ones. Saying you think Francis is a bad pope might be wrong. But it's in a different universe than Fr. Cekada or Sanborn.

For all the talk about how awfully schooled people were in an FSSP parish you were at, if you make statements like these, you sure you weren't one of em, chico?

Steve Kellmeyer said...


Thanks for living the stereotype. A priest trashing the Pope from the ambo under the guise of telling his congregation not to trash the Pope is so seriously problematic that you completely fail to see the problem.

Refusing to acknowledge any post-Pius XII document, teaching your parishioners to look with scorn on the CCC - yeah, great priests these FSSP yokels. Sure.

There's no arguing with trads or Protestants. But I repeat myself.

Kevin Tierney said...

Except it's not "trashing the pope"

If this was said during the pontificate of Benedict IX, is that "Trashing the pope?" Is Francis that? Of course not. But the principle is the same.

And are there some bad priests? Of course. But if we're taking a poll of the percentage of bad priests in the FSSP versus the bad priests in your average diocese, I'll place that bet any darn day you want.

But go ahead and think I'm close to being a sede. It's amusing.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Like I said, Kevin. There's no arguing with trad-Protestants.

Kevin Tierney said...

So the guy who runs a column dedicated to explaining the Pope's general audiences every week, has battled the actual sedes and idiots and has the scars to prove it, I"m no different than a sede?

Man it's a good thing nobody reads you anymore. I'd actually have to worry that such absurd ideas are gaining currency outside of the 50 readers of this blog. I made the mistake of checking out an old colleague, and am now reminded that you left the professional catholic world, but the proffessional catholic world never left you.

Aquinas Dad said...

Remember - Mr Kellmeyer is smarter and a better theologian than St. Thomas, any pope, or the Magisterium. Don't believe it? Ask him about why all those men are wrong about usury but he's right.
And ihe is so very angry about the priests at Mater Dei Parish that he continues to go out of his way to attend - a personal parish, one that no one os required to attend.

[BTW, Mr. Kellmeyer - have you spoken to Fr. Longua, Fr. Wolfe, or Fr. Gordon about your opinions of them? And did you read my excerpt from the CCC, above, on calumny, detraction, and rash judgement? Can you explain how your words do not meet the criteria of one of these definitions, or do you only use the CCC as a club with which to strike others?).

Aquinas Dad said...

Mr. Kellmeyer,
As someone who just listened this past weekend to an FSSP priest admonish his parishoners about being 'super trads' and how believing in such things as: the CCC is invalid; we must ignore the current canon law; the Pope isn't a 'real' pope; Vatican II wasn't 'real'; the Novus Ordo is invalid; etc.; makes them no different than Protestants and that anyone that believes that can go to confession after Mass that they may repent as his homily - AGAIN - I find your blanket statements about the FSSP to beludicrous. Combined with the fact that I have heard variations on this same homily from virtually every FSSP priest I have encountered, including their leadership, I am leaning towards seeing your words about the FSSP as a condemnation of you, not that confraternity.

Kevin Tierney said...

I don't mean to pile on, but screw it, its fun. Mr. Kellmeyer says:

"Liturgy comes from Rome, not from lay people, not from priests, not even from bishops. If Rome approves something, then I have no further right to complain. Period. End of sentence."

I hear this all the time from those of his ilk, either "mainstream" people, or self-loathing people like Mr. Kellmeyer, who came into traditionalism expecting utopia, and when everyone wasn't as awesome as they were, decided to lash out at everyone for not being perfect.

There's only one problem with this statement: it's total nonsense.

"Liturgy" doesn't come from Rome. The liturgy comes from tradition , that which is handed down. The liturgy is something handed down through the ages. It's not a doctrine, but it's the greatest presenter of doctrine there is. While the Popes can, in the service of improving the faith, bring about modifications to the liturgy, there's a few caveats here:

Popes introducing changes into the Western liturgy are EXCEPTIONALLY RARE. There's a bias against introducing change, instead of changing our faulty understanding.

When such changes are done, they tend to be modest and organic.

Does that make sweeping changes invalid? Of course not. But it does mean they go against the pattern, and there's nothing wrong pointing this out.

But Mr. Kellmeyer's reasoning is wrong for an even bigger reason: it shows an incredibly one-sided and anachronistic understanding of Catholicism. It's hard to blame him. This myopic narrow view is something most professional Catholics have, because professional Catholics in the West are products of their environment, where the only people they encounter are the echo chamber of like minded Catholics.

Go visit any of the Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome, and tell them

"Liturgy comes from Rome, not from lay people, not from priests, not even from bishops. If Rome approves something, then I have no further right to complain. Period. End of sentence."

It's a certain way to make enemies. Their liturgy did not come from Rome. And rome has never claimed authority over their liturgy, even if they have it in a theological ivory tower.

The idea that they also should not complain if their liturgy has been changed by those claiming to represent the church would also strike them as odd. Eastern Catholics have, and still do, face a lot of "latinization" of their liturgical rites. That is, foreign traditions introduced into their liturgy out of the idea that "catholic" means "roman catholic", which is more or less what Kellmeyer is advocating. While this one time had sanctioning (although the level of such is debated), it was abandoned by Leo XIII and every pope since. The current path is restoring authentic tradition to their liturgies, before Rome started making a mess of it. This complaining was, and still is, pretty bitter because their lawful traditions are suppressed because people like Mr. Kellmeyer are out there pushing their ahistorical nonsense.

What makes it more ironic is Kellmeyer praises the east, when it's convenient, in claiming that the faults of the Church since Vatican II were because of the so called "tridentine" mindset. A mindset, that, let the record show, Mr. Kellmeyer exhibits in spades.


Kevin Tierney said...

What's interesting is I linked this page on my fb. The biggest objections came not from trads.... but from Eastern Catholics.

Now do I think Mr. Kellmeyer believes what he writes? Nah. Just that he isn't thinking it through. Like most who prefer agenda and ideology above reality, they kinda wing it as they go along. Just as how when the subject was trying to get people to label Christopher West a heretic, he had no problem criticizing authority, and encouraged others, including bloggers, to do likewise. but now, such criticism is off-limits, even though its of an objectively lower order. (Please Father, don't remove beautiful art!)

But there's a common thread here. Mr. Kellmeyer insists on playing Magesterium when the real one chooses to stay silent. He can't accept that there are different ways to practice the faith in communion with Rome. A lot of us choose the more difficult route. I don't like Christopher West, but I can't call him a heretic.

likewise, I don't like Kellmeyer's anti-traditionalist bigotry, nor the fact that he ends up associating Catholicism with crackpot lunacy like birtherism and nothing but urine and vinegar as Catholic commentary. But his local bishop has not deigned to discipline him, he might not even view any discipline as warranted. faced with that reality, I can only point out why he shouldn't be taken seriously by Catholics, and be glad that so far he isn't, and likely never will be.

David L Alexander said...

"This is why, technically, a Catholic can demand communion in the hand at a Tridentine Mass. It is permitted."

As a Senior MC at a parish with the TLM, we had to deal with this issue. Some things would be covered by universal law, while others would be subject to the discipline of the rite of its time (in this case, 1962). The Pontifical Commission -- in this case, Steve, that would be "Rome" -- determined in favor of the latter. So, no, communion cannot be given in the hand in the Extraordinary Form.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Eastern Catholics who think Rome doesn't control their liturgies are simply wrong. The ability to practice a specific liturgy - even an Eastern liturgy - comes from Rome. Period.

If they don't like that, they shouldn't be in communion with Rome.

As for communion in the hand at an EF Mass, a communicant can insist on it.

Reception in the hand is by indult, reception on the tongue is the liturgical norm. A bishop can remove permission for the indult, but not for the norm.

So, the EF priest can be as upset or angry as he wants, but in the US, he ultimately cannot refuse, unless the bishop in whose diocese he has graciously been permitted to operate has removed the indult (which a bishop is allowed to do).

Kevin Tierney said...

There's just one problem with what you're saying Steve..... there's absolutely no evidence for it.

Or as Rome has stated in Universae Ecclesaie:

"Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962."

That includes communion in the hand. LIkewise, you can't walk into an Eastern Church and demand communion in the hand. They'll refuse, and they are well within their rights to do so.

As far as "their liturgy comes from Rome", care to show any evidence for that? Rome did not give the Melkites the Divine Liturgy. They had it for centuries. There's a reason Pius V didn't dare try to impose the Roman Rite on the Eastern Churches either. Even if he had such authority, it would be an incredible abuse of it.

Can you find me any magesterial text which tells the East that the source of their liturgy isn't tradition, but the bishop of rome?

Kevin Tierney said...

Though i give you credit. You were given a chance to take the out when presented with the facts. You chose to instead keep digging.

Kevin Tierney said...

And finally....

Steve, can you show me where in the Eastern Code of Canon Law "The ability to practice a specific liturgy - even an Eastern liturgy - comes from Rome"

I just did a search and yeah, I don't see anything remotely like that.

Rather Rome pretty much recognizes that they are their own church, their own discipline, and they stay out of their affairs unless truly necessary. And suppressing a centuries old religion would never be necessary.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Who do you think promulgated the Eastern Code of Canon Law? The Popes *DID* Latinize many Eastern liturgies, as was their right. Then a century or so later, they returned them to their former rubrics, as was also their papal right.


Kevin Tierney said...

Actually the Popes NEVER Latinized those liturgies. Rather missionaries did. That's a big difference.

Nowhere has a Pope claimed the ability to manage an Eastern liturgy. Instead, he respects their tradition and the fact they are a Church in their own right.

The idea that because there is no law against it, ergo its something you can or should do is madness.

Again, care to cite actual magisterial texts backing you up? Or is this like communion in the hand at the TLM? Forget the facts, print the ideology?

Kevin Tierney said...

"The question of autonomy stems from the fact that the Syro-Malabar
Church does not have the authority to name bishops, or to settle
sensitive liturgical questions, without the involvement of the
Vatican. Some Eastern-rite churches, such as the Ukrainian
Catholic Church, have a greater degree of "sui generis" autonomy.

So in other words, you're wrong. Notice I consistently said CHURCHES. But press releases aren't magesterial documents. Funny, even the press releases show you not knowing what you are talking about.

So please, go hit google harder.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

As even Zuhlsdorf recognizes, the Ecclesia Dei letters on reception of communion at an EF Mass "is a great deal less than the final word."

To this day, the Eastern rite bishops themselves recognize that Rome reserves liturgical changes to itself. Who do you think GAVE those churches that have more autonomy the greater autonomy? They were raised to that autonomy by Rome.

I apologize for attempting to point out the facts to you, Kevin. It's cruel of me to do so. You have your worldview and you won't change it. I don't know why.

Kevin Tierney said...

I more just reject the idea that your personal interpretation, bereft of any actual magesterial evidence, is proof.

I didn't cite a letter. I cited an authoritative interpretation of the manner on communion in the hand, dated AFTER the letter you cite. Roma locuta est.

As far as everything else, you hold that if there's silence on the manner, that means Rome can, should, and does act.

Rome looks at things in a decidedly different manner. I prefer to follow the popes. Not some amateur blogger who thinks he can play orthodoxy cop.

Kevin Tierney said...

And I don't hold Fr. Z to be an infallible authority here, but if Kellmeyer is going to play google scholar, he might at least want to look for the most current state of events. Once Universae Ecclesiae was released, Fr. Z said the following:

"Par. 28 is very important:

28 – Praeterea, cum sane de lege speciali agitur, quoad materiam propriam, Litterae Apostolicae Summorum Pontificum derogant omnibus legibus liturgicis, sacrorum rituum propriis, exinde ab anno 1962 promulgatis, et cum rubricis librorum liturgicorum anni 1962 non congruentibus. … Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

Derogate means that things are partially replaced, set aside. So, insofar as the use of the 1962 books is concerned, if there is something that came into law after 1962, and that thing or practice conflicts with what is in the 1962 books, then those later, post-1962 things don’t apply to the use of the 1962 books.

Communion in the hand is after 1962, as are Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, altar girls....."

You can read the link. Don't worry, I'll give you ample time to hit google looking for something else.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Hey, Kevin, as I said, I apologize for attempting to break you out of your traditionalism and back into the Catholic Church. It is cruel of me to have this conversation with you as it just makes you absurdly angry. I'm not going to continue it.

As you say, I'm just a Catholic blogger. You are the voice of orthodoxy or whatever, clearly. Go back to Fr. Z. He'll welcome you with open arms, I'm sure.

Kevin Tierney said...


Ignore all evidence.

Shawn said...

[ The Popes *DID* Latinize many Eastern liturgies, as was their right. Then a century or so later, they returned them to their former rubrics, as was also their papal right.]

With all due respect, this is flat out wrong. To wit:

"[A]t Florence, in all these matters there was no attempt at changing the old order. Each Church was to keep its own liturgy and its own canon law as far as that was not incompatible with the Roman primacy, which is defide. The very decree that proclaimed the primacy added the clause, that the pope guides and rules the whole Church of God "without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the other patriarchs"...If there has been any latinizing movement among Uniats, it has sprung up among themselves...

A short survey of papal documents relating to the Eastern Churches will make these points clear.—Before Pius IX, the most important of these documents was Benedict XIV's Encyclical "Allata? sunt" of 2 July, 1755. In it the pope is able to quote a long list of his predecessors who had already cared for the Eastern Churches and their rites. He mentions acts of Innocent III (1198-1216), Honorius III (1216-27), Innocent IV (1243-54), Alexander IV (1254-61), Gregory X (1271-76), Nicholas III (1277-80), Eugene IV (1431-47), Leo X (1513-21), Clement VII (1523-34), Pius IV (1559-65), all to this effect. Gregory XIII (1572-85) founded at Rome colleges for Greeks, Maronites, Armenians. In 1602 Clement VIII published a decree allowing Ruthenian priests to celebrate their rite in Latin churches. In 1624 Urban VIII forbade Ruthenians to become Latins, and Clement IX, in 1669, published the same order for Uniat Armenians (Allatffl sunt, I). Benedict XIV not only quotes these examples of former popes, he confirms the same principle by new laws. In 1742 he had reestablished the Ruthenian Church with the Byzantine Rite after the national Council of Zamosc, confirming again the laws of Clement VIII in 1595...

Most of all did the last two popes show their concern for Eastern Christendom. Each by a number of Acts carried on the tradition of conciliation towards the schismatical Churches and of protection of Uniat Rites. Pius IX, inhis Encyclical In SupremaPetri" (Epiphany, 1848), again assures non-Uniats that "we will keep unchanged your liturgies, which indeed we greatly honour"...In 1860 the Bulgars, disgusted with the Phanar (the Greeks of Constantino§le), approached the Catholic Armenian patriarch, tassun; he, and the pope confirming him, promised that there should be no latinizing of their Rite. Pius IX founded, 6 January, 1862, a separate department for the Oriental Rites as a special section of the great Propaganda Congregation. Leo XIII in 1888 wrote a letter to the Armenians (Paterna charitas) in which he exhorts the Gregorians to reunion, always on the same terms. But his most important act, perhaps the most important of all documents of this kind, is the Encyclical "Orientalium dignitas ecclesiarum" of 30 November, 1894. In this letter the pope reviewed and confirmed all similar acts of his predecessors and then strengthened them by yet severer laws against any form of latinizing the East. The first part of the Encyclical quotes examples of the care of former popes for Eastern Rites, especially of Pius IX; Pope Leo remembers also what he nimself has already done for the same cause..." [The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference, Volume 5. Pgs 238-240 (Circa 1913)]

While the popes since Pope Leo XIII have been more resolute against latinizing, at no time did the popes prior to Leo Latinize the Eastern liturgies as you have claimed Steve. I will not at this time address your absurd notion that all liturgies (even Eastern ones) come from Rome: an error arguably even bigger on your part than your claims,of the popes Latinizing Eastern liturgies.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

To take just one quote: "again assures non-Uniats that "we will keep unchanged your liturgies, which indeed we greatly honour"."

Pope has the power to change anyone's liturgy. Anyone's.

Shawn said...

What do you think the popes would say when trying to encourage reunion of the Uniates with Rome? That does not mean Rome had the authority to modify eastern liturgies. Liturgical and sacramental modifications are prerogatives of Patriarchs not Popes though the Pope is also a Patriarch in the west. (And I am referring to real patriarchs by apostolic succession, not the fictitious Latin patriarchs of ancienf eastern sees lime Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.) No pope would DARE tell the eastern patriarchs what to do liturgically and if he did, they would laugh in his face and justifiably so!

Your seizing on the statement aboutm the Uniates does not, prove your point because the Uniates were integrated into the Roman Church as basically satellites. Their patriarchs and metropolitans do not have authority to do anything without the popes concurrence for that reason and even then, the popes have been careful to not touch their liturgical and sacramental forms because they know the eastern patriarchs would see that as an infringement by the popes upon their traditional and historical prerogatives.

But then again, when you view church history through the eyes of western revisionist post-1054 you get a lot of these sorts of fictions cropping up. The reality of church history is the early church was a confederation of churches who were on matters of ritual, ceremony, and government autonomous entities. Rome had a primacy but it was not what has been made out of it by many western apologists; indeed, there is no Scriptural warrant for the absurdity of which the west has made out of the pope with the idea he is this all powerful micromanager who can intervene anywhere in anything and do whatever he wants on anything. Church history does not support such nonsense and when folks like you spout it, you betray a serious lacuna of knowledge of real history. One reason we have the filioque problem is the pope presuming to modify the Creed on his own without consulting the church at large and without the sanction lf an ecumenical council to do so. And that was one word in the Creed! Do you honestly think for one second the eastern patriarchs would stand for tne pope trying to touch one syllable of their divine liturgy?

In fact, I challenge you to find even one example of a pope changing anything in an eastern liturgy in the entire first millennium and when you cannot find it, kindly cease such idiocies as you make westerners such as myself who know real church history embarrassed to see Catholics who are in a position to influence others so badly misinformed.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Referring to them as Uniates - you do realize the word is generally considered an insult be the Eastern Catholics?

"I am referring to real patriarchs by apostolic succession, not the fictitious Latin patriarchs of ancienf eastern sees lime Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem."

First I have a fad trad tell me the Latinization is due to missionaries, then another fad trad tells me "No, no, it's due to the Eastern bishops themselves" and now an EO weighs in on their side to impugn the ancient patriarchates.

You have all officially just jumped the shark. Please continue to talk amongst yourselves. I'm done here.

dcs said...

Liturgical and sacramental modifications are prerogatives of Patriarchs not Popes though the Pope is also a Patriarch in the west.

If a Patriarch has the authority, then so does the Pope. Whether or not it would be a good idea to exercise that authority is a separate question. But along with Msgr. Gamber I regard it as at least dubious that a Pope has plenary authority to modify any received rite of the Church.

pope with the idea he is this all powerful micromanager who can intervene anywhere in anything and do whatever he wants on anything

Of course he can; the question is whether he ought: "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

"So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."

One reason we have the filioque problem is the pope presuming to modify the Creed on his own without consulting the church at large and without the sanction lf an ecumenical council to do so.

You mean, the Pope presumed to do exactly what the Eastern bishops did at the First Council of Constantinople ... modify the Creed without consulting the whole Church. Not a single Western bishop was in attendance at First Constantinople. And there is evidence that the Creed adopted at Constantinople was already in use in the East.

Aquinas Dad said...

And still no attempt to explain his detraction/calumny of a priest..,,

tim520 said...

"Hello kettle? This is pot. I just called to say, 'you're black!'"

Steve, I find some of your posts very helpful, but you know very well what a troll you are, but this time you really humiliated yourself. Tierney owned you.

BTW, your explanation for usury a few months back set new standards for incoherency.

Aquinas Dad said...

More than two weeks and no response.
Mr. Kellmeyer, are you simply admitting through silence that you are now aware that you committed the grave sin of Calumny?