Can a Pope Err in Doctrinal, Liturgical , and Canonical Matters?
#11
(05-22-2012, 04:10 PM)Joshua Wrote:
(05-22-2012, 03:12 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(05-22-2012, 02:35 PM)Joshua Wrote: I'd be interested to learn more about what is claimed about Pope Clement VII and his alleged approval of classical pagan elements into the liturgy. I've never heard of this ...  ???

I believe he was the one who had the hymns in the breviary rewritten in classical Latin.

This I knew. However, I am unable to find any info on hymns approved by Clement referring to our Lady with explicitly pagan epithets. TIA can be screwy at times, but I sure hope they didn't just completely concoct these details.

What they are referring to is probably the hymnal of Ferreri.  Pope Leo X had commissioned a certain Zacharia Ferreri to produce a revised hymnal, due to the distaste many Renaissance scholars had for the hymns of the Breviary.  Ferreri produced a hymnal written in Ciceronian Latin which does use a lot of pagan phraseology (going well beyond just meter); Clement VII granted the hymnal ecclesiastical approbation and even permitted its use in divinis.

I don't have any examples to hand of Our Lady being referred to with pagan epithets, but what I read of the hymnal suggests it would be completely in character.  Here is a stanza from one of Ferreri's Lenten hymns (translation taken from English edition of Battifol's History of the Roman Breviary):

Bacchus abscedat, Venus ingemiscat,
Nec jocis ultra locus est, nec escis,
nec maritali thalamo, nec ulli
        Ebrietati.


Hence with thee, Bacchus!  Venus, fall a-weeping!
Here's no more place for laughter or for feasting;
Nor for the joys of marriage, nor for any
        Drunkenness either.

Battifol makes the point that what ultimately condemns this project is "ignorance of all liturgical tradition, and utter aversion to the study of it."  The disdain these churchmen had for Christian Latin is almost scandalous; from the preface to the Ferreri hymnal:

Qui bona latinitate praediti sunt sacerdotes, dum barbaris vocibus Deum laudare coguntur, in risum provocati sacra saepenumero contemnunt.

"Priest who are acquainted with good latinity, when they are compelled to praise God in such barbarous language, are moved to laughter, and frequently led to despise sacred rites altogether."

Battifol describes them as "churchmen so enslaved to their Ciceronianism" who would remake the liturgy to fit the questionable tastes of their times.  Sound familiar?  The revised hymns that actually appear in the Breviary were later; they were inserted in the Tridentine Breviary by Urban VIII in the 17th century.
Reply
#12
You mean this isn't the first time a Pope went off the track in liturgical matters? Shocking! And a Medici no less.
Reply
#13
(05-30-2012, 03:54 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: You mean this isn't the first time a Pope went off the track in liturgical matters? Shocking! And a Medici no less.

One shouldn't insinuate that the example compares to the new liturgy. The historical example he cited above is not something that traditional Catholics are unfamiliar with. They do not find it compelling because being compelled by it requires one to seriously oversimplify the matter. Catholics wont to preserve their faith by trying to marginalize the seriousness and extent of the crisis have a tendency sometimes to cherry-pick instances from the Church's antiquity to set up as some sort of precedent for what we see going on today. It is desperate, and it isn't very convincing.
Reply
#14
Excellent
Reply
#15
(05-31-2012, 01:37 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-30-2012, 03:54 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: You mean this isn't the first time a Pope went off the track in liturgical matters? Shocking! And a Medici no less.

One shouldn't insinuate that the example compares to the new liturgy. The historical example he cited above is not something that traditional Catholics are unfamiliar with. They do not find it compelling because being compelled by it requires one to seriously oversimplify the matter. Catholics wont to preserve their faith by trying to marginalize the seriousness and extent of the crisis have a tendency sometimes to cherry-pick instances from the Church's antiquity to set up as some sort of precedent for what we see going on today. It is desperate, and it isn't very convincing.

I agree that the matter is wholly without precedent. But just like the Antichrist, there were foreshadowings. Like Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, the modern crisis is the synthesis of all crises. In some sense, though, our Popes aren't as bad as they could be. They still are quite pious people.
Reply
#16
Of course just look at John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, Benedict XVI. Nothing but error and heresy.
Reply
#17
I say yes.  Beside Clement VII, look to John XXII as a great example.
Reply
#18
(06-10-2012, 12:30 AM)Walty Wrote: I say yes.  Beside Clement VII, look to John XXII as a great example.

Well, if you mean that he was objectively found to be wrong, yes, but that wasn't known with absolute authoritative certaintly until after he died. While he lived, he wasn't really in any state of true doctrinal error. John XXII's opinion hadn't been determined yet by the Church at the time of his denial, so he wasn't considered a heretic. The view he opposed was the traditional view, but not an article of faith. It wasn't until after he died that the Church determined the matter. Had he professed this error after the Church determined the matter, then he would have guilty of professing doctrinal error. As it stands today, however, he was simply found to have been wrong retrospectively, in much the same way it is said that St. Thomas was found to be wrong retrospectively (though, as I understand it, this is a matter of debate). This is how St. Francis de Sales explained this matter when he examined the question of whether the pope could become a heretic.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)