Rorate Caeli

Remembering Gamber - I


Only four years had passed since the publication of the new Missal when Pope Paul VI surprised the Catholic world with a new Ordo Missæ, dated April 6, 1969. The revision made in 1965 did not touch the traditional liturgical rite. In accordance with the mandate of Article 50 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, it had been primarily concerned with removing some later additions to the Order of the Mass. The publication of the Ordo Missæ of 1969, however, created a new liturgical rite. In other words, the traditional liturgical rite had not simply been revised as the Council had intended. Rather, it had been completely abolished, and a couple of years later, the traditional liturgical rite was, in fact, forbidden.

All this leads to the question: Does such a radical reform follow the tradition of the Church? ...

The argument could be made that the pope's authority to introduce a new liturgical rite, that is, to do so without a decision by a council, can be derived from the "full and highest power" (plena et suprema potestas) he has in the Church, as cited by the First Vatican Council, i.e., power over matters quæ ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiæ per totum orbem diffusæ pertinent ("that pertain to the discipline and rule of the Church spread out over all the world") (Denzinger, 1831).

However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition. For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of "discipline and rule of the Church." To this we can add that there is not a single document, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional liturgical rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.

There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church—that is, as Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite.

Thus, the eminent theologian Suarez (who died in 1617), citing even earlier authors such as Cajetan (who died in 1534), took the position that a pope would be schismatic "if he, as is his duty, would not be in full communion with the body of the Church as, for example, if he were to excommunicate the entire Church, or if he were to change all the liturgical rites of the Church that have been upheld by apostolic tradition." [Et hoc secundo modo posset Papa esse schismaticus, si nollet tenere cum toto Ecclesiæ corpore unionem et coniunctionem quam debet, ut si tenat et totem Ecclesiam excommunicare, aut si vellel omnes Ecclesiasticas cæremonias apostolica traditione firmatas evertere.]

As we examine the issue of unlimited papal authority and how it relates to the authority to change the established liturgical rite, if the statement made by Suarez still is not entirely convincing, this argument just may be: the already established fact that, until Pope Paul VI, there has not been a single pope who introduced the type of fundamental changes in liturgical forms which we now witness.
Klaus Gamber
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
(
Die Reform der römischen Liturgie: Vorgeschichte und Problematik)

25 comments:

humboldt said...

I think that the information presented in this posting is extremely important in order to understand the chain of events that lead to the current situation, in the liturgical sphere of the Church. From everything that I have read about this problem, indeed Pope Paul VI broke with the tradition of the church in the sphere of governance, since he imposed his "authority" by "breaking away" from the tradition of the Church in internal matters. I believe that Pope Paul VI has been the most autocratic Pope that the Church has had in a very long time. I don't know if there could be another example of equal brutality and authoritarianism as Pope Paul VI exhibited with the promulgation of the Novus Ordo. However, in no part of Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 1969 one could infer that the Tridentine Mass was forbidden, there is no explicit abolishment of the Tridentine Liturgical Books. Still, in practice the Tridentine Mass was forbidden since its celebration was suspended in the Universal Church, perhaps being allowed in very specific cases of individuals. All of these acts were in direct opposition to the texts and spirits of the II Vatican Council that did not forbade the 1962 books nor abolished the Tridentine Mass nor the other rites of the Latin Church, previous to 1969.

Doctor Asinorum said...

It seems worth noting that if it is in fact true that the Pope lacks the authority to abolish a Rite (which I'm perfectly willing to believe), that does not (by itself) entail that he does not have the right to establish a new form of liturgy. So even if, as I believe the Ecclesia Dei Commission clearly shows, the Mass of Pius V was never abrogated by the establishment of the Novus, Gamber's observations here do not settle what surely must be of most interest--whether the Pope can, on his own authority, introduce a fundamentally new Roman liturgy (without formally abrogating the traditional one).

Much turns on Gamber's statement "As we have already shown, the assertion, which continues to be made, that the inclusion of some parts of the traditional Missal into the new one means a continuation of the Roman rite, is unsupportable." Not having access to that putative demonstration leaves us at a disadvantage here.

New Catholic said...

Remember: this is only part I. However, so that you do not remain without an appropriate logical demonstration, these two paragraphs do, I believe, constitute a fine summary of it:

"If we assume that the liturgical rite evolved on the basis of shared traditions—and nobody who has at least some knowledge of liturgical history will dispute this—then it cannot be developed anew in its entirety. ...

To change any of its essential elements is synonymous with the destruction of the rite in its entirety. This is what happened during the Reformation when Martin Luther did away with the canon of the Mass and made the words of consecration and institution part of the distribution of communion. Clearly, this change destroyed the Roman Mass, even though it appeared that traditional liturgical forms continued unchanged—initially even the vestments and choral chant remained. As soon as the traditional liturgical rite had been abandoned, however, the momentum for further liturgical change began to accelerate among Protestant communities."

Yet, for the sake of objectivity, I have decided to remove the text you quote to include it in a future post.

With Peter said...

Thank you, New Catholic. I appreciate this article immensely and I look forward to subsequent parts of "Remembering Gamber."

humboldt said...

I wouldn't have a problem accepting the postulate that the Pope can introduce new rites in the fold of the Catholic Church, assumming that he does not have the authority to suppress an existing, legitimate and valid catholic rite. However, I think that this authority of the Pope is not boundless, but that it must be bounded by the principles of catholic liturgy, which in itself should have definitive status in the Church. After all this is where the gist of the discussion rests, what is the authority that the Pope has in order to legislate in matters of liturgy? The principle that the Pope, nor the bishops in communion with him, is an absolut monarch must be explicit and biding to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. Vatican I defined the principle of the limits of the papacy, Vatican II developed on the principles, however there was no explicit proposition as to the limits to the authority of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him to legislate in matters of faith, customs and liturgy in the Catholic Church. The experience of Pope Paul VI, clearly revealed how easy it is to abuse the authority granted by divine revalation to the Pope and to bishops in communion with him. Lacking the leadership of the Pope, as was the case of the pontificate of Pope Paul VI, the Church is left guideless with great damage to the faithfulls. However, we must also remember the espiritual nature of the Church, which could lead us to accept periods of crisis as part of the divine plan of salvation.

With Peter said...

It is clear that Benedict XVI does not believe that the 1970 Missal is a new rite, but a new form of an existing rite. On a side note, it is interesting that St. Pius V does refer to his liturgical revision as a new rite: “This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago” (Quo Primum). But this might be misleading because he is not speaking of a “rite” in the same sense as we are.

Anyway, I’ll keep my comments to a minimum because I wish to reserve judgment until New Catholic finishes publishing all the parts of this piece. I do have a couple question though. Where does one draw the line of what constitutes too big of a change for the pope to make? And: If there is difference of opinion – one believes it is a minor change another believes it is major – how would this dispute be settled, seeing as the pope obviously supports the change?

I have no quarrel with admitting that the pope’s authority is ONTOLOGICALLY limited by the various criteria that are in the Church’s documents and that have been brought up here, my problem is with EPISTEMOLOGY. The whole thing seems to quickly devolve into a question of one’s private judgment versus another.

Let me submit this in the form of a question: If the pope does transgress his bounds, isn’t this incongruous with the Father’s providence, the Son’s promise and the Holy Spirit’s protection of the successor of Peter?

Gregg said...

"Let me submit this in the form of a question: If the pope does transgress his bounds, isn’t this incongruous with the Father’s providence, the Son’s promise and the Holy Spirit’s protection of the successor of Peter?"

I don't see why it would. It is dogma that the Pope cannot officially teach contrary to the truth regarding faith and morals. The Pope's infallibility in canonizing saints and also the guarantee that, in Her universal discipline, the Church will never command what is evil nor forbid what is obligatory (not to be confused with forbidding what is good, but not required, or permitting what is evil)--these are both part of the traditional teaching about the Papacy and the Church.

I don't know of any other even speculative claims about the Divine protection of the Pope's words and actions.

Popes surely transgress the bounds of the powers in other things. Pope Alexander VI basically gave the Western Hemisphere to Portugal. Pope Liberius excommunicated St. Athanasius. Other examples could be multiplied.

As to the question of how we determine when the Pope has transgressed the limits of his legitimate authority in liturgical matters, I certainly claim no expertise, but perhaps we could even admit grey areas here. When St. Joseph was added to the Canon, was this an abuse of Papal power? I don't know. Bl. Pius IX seems to think that the Pope could not touch the canon. Nevertheless, it was done and I think that in such a case it would be a grave sin against prudence and religion to say that the change was illegitimate and, therefore, to reject it.

However, the fact that there are *some* grey areas does not mean that there aren't cases of black and white. The St. Joseph case is ambiguous; the Novus Ordo Missae is not. It's absolutely clear that the Novus Ordo Missae was a violation of the Pope's duty to safeguard, and not to change, the tradition that he and the whole Church have inherited.

Moretben said...

If the pope does transgress his bounds, isn’t this incongruous with the Father’s providence, the Son’s promise and the Holy Spirit’s protection of the successor of Peter?

NO!

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/10/authority-and-recognition.html

With Peter said...

Thank you, Gregg. I do take issue with your two specific examples (i.e. I would defend Alexander's decision and I think Liberius' supposed apostasy is hearsay caused by a vicious Arian rumor), but I accept the principle these examples illustrate. As I wrote some place else, almost every century sees a pope elected precisely because of his respectful and submissive criticism of the policies of the previous pontiff.

For many of us, however, the 1970 Missal is not clear cut and it does not appear as an obvious violation of the pope's duty. The administrator will certainly regard this comment as divisive and delete it if I specifically explain or defend this view, but I simply ask you to accept the principle: A fairly intelligent person can honestly see the 1970 Missal as a great gift to the Church, which has often been gravely abused.

Certainly, the Church has the right to and in fact does tolerate evils to occur in order to bring about a greater good. This raises what is for me a difficult question: Can the Church be wrong about which evils to tolerate and which to suppress? Secondly, in what manner can these humanly wrong decisions be considered divinely correct? In other words, if we were to say that Unam Sanctam (1302) was written out of carelessness, pride and spite, couldn't we still defend the truth of its teaching?

Would this admission do violence to Chapters 1-4 of Paster Aeternus?

Moretben- I think your internal citation does not answer, but begs the question. To what extent are the decisions Church's ordinary and universal magisterium protected by God? At what point do we make ourselves into the judge of the judge?

humboldt said...

Let's remember that the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff is circumscribed to acts of an "ex-cathedra" nature. Vatican I defines the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the Pope in "ex-cathedra" cases, not in every single decision that the Pope makes. When was the last time that a Pope issued an ex-cathedra formulation? Strictly speaking I believe that the last time a Pope used this power was when Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of assumption, in body and soul, of the Virgin into Heaven. However, according to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, approved by Pope John Paul II and officially incorporated into the Code of Cannon Law, there are two types of infallible acts by the Pope and the bishops in communion with him: extraordinary acts, like the one of Pius XII, and ordinary acts which correspond to decisions taken by ordinary magisterium of the Pope, example: when Pope John Paul II declared that women cannot be priests. This was not an ex-cathedra declaration in itself, however according the Church today, this declaration carried the same level of assurance required from the faithful: as a definitive act bounding religious belief.

Still there are no clear boundaries to the authority of the Pope in liturgical matters. After all the constitution on liturgy of the II Vatican Council, does not carry any definitive standing.

With Peter: your statement that "Certainly, the Church has the right to and in fact does tolerate evils to occur in order to bring about a greater good", has already been condemned by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” where he attacks moral relativism.

Gregg said...

The reason I say the Novus Ordo Missae is obviously a break with tradition is not simply because of its content, but the very fact of its promulgation.

Benedict XVI (as Cardinal) has said that Vatican II must not been seen as "a start from zero" -- that is, as something which is seen as not a continuation with tradition. It's not my aim here to consider this statement. However, I would argue that whatever is the case with the Council, the Novus Ordo Missae is *certainly* a start from zero.

Yes, the NOM contains certain elements from Tradition (the consecration, the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc.). However, a fundamental aspect of tradition is continuity with the past. The Missal of Pius V was the result of an organic development that took place over the previous 1500 years (in all its essential aspects, that development had finished by the time of St. Gregory the Great, as I understand it).

The Novus Ordo was drawn up taking some elements from here, some elements from there. We'll take the Agnus Dei from the traditional Roman Rite; we'll take a few Eucharistic prayers from some Eastern liturgies; we'll take vestments from several centuries back (ignoring the question of how accurate this historical claim is). To be traditional is NOT to be old, and it's certainly NOT to be a combination of a number of heterogenous old parts (not to mention the many pure innovations in the NOM). It's very clear from all of this that NOM was exactly a "start from zero"--the drafters took a clean slate and decided to heap a bunch of stuff together.

So, that's why I say that promulgating the NOM was a break with tradition.

Now, you say, since the Church gave it to us, out of humility, we must accept it as a gift and, even if the circumstances of its promulgation were bad, we ought to assume that its essential good.

I would argue humility ought to teach us the opposite conclusion. There is no guarantee that in promulgating new liturgies the Church will give us something spiritually fruitful, edifying, and uplifting. In fact, if I'm right, the Church shouldn't be giving us new liturgies at all!

If that's so, humility ought to make us suspicious of the Novus Ordo, regardless of any considerations of its content. The Novus Ordo is a fabrication; it does not arise out of the holy tradition of the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit. We should be, for that reason alone, quite mistrustful of it!

So, I would not accept your analogy with an imprudent, but still infallible, Papal pronouncement. Unam Sanctam, whatever its historical circumstances (which I don't know), was infallible and even if Pope Boniface VIII had bad intentions, we must defend it as we would defend any piece of the faith, even if we shouldn't defend his motives. The Novus Ordo Missae does not have that same guarantee that Unam Sanctam does, however, and is there subject to the scrutiny of tradition.

humboldt said...

I certainly agree with gregg in that "In fact, if I'm right, the Church shouldn't be giving us new liturgies at all!" Certainly the hierarchy does not have nor it should have the authority to invent new rites. In this sense a critique of the Novus Ordo is necessary.

The question "When St. Joseph was added to the Canon, was this an abuse of Papal power'" is a valid question. This was done by Bl. John XXIII.

When is it valid for a Pope to touch the Roman Cannon?

However, the same question could be placed in the prayer of the Confiteor, that traditionally does not include "omission" as sin, while the Novus Ordo includes it.

I myself think that in both cases: St.Joseph in the Roman Cannon, and "omission" in the Confiteor, have only enriched the Mass, and are in complete agreement with traditional theology and with the authority of the Pope.

As long as there is not a definitive pronouncement from the Church in matters of liturgy, all of these problems will continue.

MacK said...

Indeed, an excellent document, among others on Rorate Caeli.

Pope Paul (RIP) VI broke with far too many Catholic Traditions. The liturgy is but one, though one of which the importance is overwhelmingly felt today in the current climate of general liturgical confusion. Further, Catholic liturgical music is in an appaling and protestantised state of decline at present. No wonder averge modern catholics do not know their faith.

It is with such documents in mind among many others which predate Mgr Gamber's that many Catholics have found the NO service absolutely unacceptable. There is almost nothing in it which preserves the principles of organic liturgical development. It is a hotch-potch of conflicting principles: the dubious fruits of which are displayed elsewhere on this and other web-sites

There are many public statements made by Pope Paul VI after the councils, indicating that he had much to regret from his unfortunate pontificate. Its consequences have been widely suffered by us all. The attempts to have him canonised have run into problems and not without reason. It is almost inexplicable on any rational premise that he should have been the pope most admired by one of his successors.

When you read public statements by churchmen on The Latin Mass and its apparent decline, you have to note the varied answers which are offered ranging from "suppressed" to "abolished" to "went out of use" to "declined" to "disappeared from use". This confusion over what has actually happened characterises the pontificate in which the initial problems first arose. In fact, indecisiveness and weakness more than autocracy and brutality were his particular traits.

For a Holy Father who undid Pope St Pius X's protective infrastructure against the assault of modernistic heresy, there could only be one such outcome. The sooner the liturgy is sorted out in a reliable and Roman Catholic manner the better it will be for Christendom. Then perhaps we will enjoy a true springtime of faith and not the bogus one trumpetted aloud in the 1980s and 1990s.

humboldt said...

I share also mack's feelings about H.H. Pope Paul (RIP) VI. Still I was more disturbed when I read that the then Cardinal Patriarch of Venece, Albino Luciani, in a suffrage mass he held for Pope Paul VI on August 9, 1978, publicly said:

"My brothers, no man is perfect; Paul VI also, whom we lament so much, will have perhaps done some things imperfectly. To me, however, it seems, that he, extremely cultivated as a man, exemplary as a priest, as Pope really did see «wide and far».

30Days Magazine, June/July 2006.

And this was from the same man of whom the media has tried to portray as an insignificant sheep.

Indeed I think that equal harm can be done by omission than by deeds. In the case of Paul VI the former seems to be the case, which makes it more tragic. Still the popes after him have not had the courage to confront those mistakes, but rather have tried to pull the Church ahead by sheer force of "personal charisma". There is only so much that "personal charisma" can do, because in the end the problems continue to be there.

humboldt said...

If personal charisma is not accompanied by coherent acts then the bearer of personal charism is devoid of substance. There is one clear thing in today's church, although little by little the culture that II Vatican Council was not a refoundation of the Church is beggining to take hold, there are still vasts sectors of the clergy that believe that it was. This is why to undue the bad things that Paul VI did, has become a sort of tabu. Benedict XVI has very carefully trying to do this, but very wary, while at the same time reinforcing the Paul VI's culture in the Church. This cannot be healthy for the clergy because confusion continues.

sacerdos15 said...

Blessed John XXIII placed the name of St.Joseph in the canon but his predecessors going back to LeoXIII had considerd doing this havong been petitioned by many bishops.It is interesting to note that in their strong denunciation of the NO,Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci admitted one change to the mass to be an improvment.They said adding "omission" to the confiteor was an improvement.

tribus candelis said...

I think we have to be careful not to sanitise Gamber too much. I find some of his comments ambiguous:

‘The question we need to ask is: What are the root causes of this liturgical debacle? Any reasonable person understands that these causes cannot be traced to the Second Vatican Council alone. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of December 4, 1963, was but an interim step in a process set in motion long ago, and for many different reasons.’ p.10

‘The first pope to actually alter the traditional Missal was Pius XII when he introduced the new Holy Week liturgy. It would have been possible to mve the Holy Saturday Mass to nighttime without modifying the rite.’ p. 26

‘So many of the liturgical innovations introduced over the past 25 years – beginning with the decree of February 9, 1951 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII reforming the Easter Week Liturgy [sic., that decree introduced the first version of the new Paschal Vigil not the rest of Holy Week which was reformed in 1955]; then the “new” Codex of Rubrics of July 25, 1960, long since changed again; then the many small changes made during the following years; and now the “reform” of the Ordo Missae of April 6, 1969 have proved utterly useless and indeed detrimental to the spiritual welfare of the Church.’ p. 63

Gamber, K., ‘The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background’, Una Voce/The Foundation for Catholic Reform, 1993

New Catholic said...

Let me moderate the discussion away from Pius XII, of most glorious memory. Not even the 1965 reforms are under debate here -- the excerpt refers to the events of 1969 and their unprecedented nature in the long history of Papal liturgical acts.

With Peter said...

Humboldt- "Condemned by Veritatis Splendor."

You will find that the Church has always taught that God permits evil in order to bring about a greater good. Romans 11:32 is a fine example of this. Really this is of the very essence of the Paschal Mystery and the entire Christian faith: Why does God tolerate evil? "O happy fault that one for us so glorious a Redeemer!"

Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good" (no. 412). If you desire I can provide further proofs that in her own decisions, the Church has in this respect always imitated her divine Lord.

This is not "relativism" in any sense of the word.

With Peter said...

Many things are being said about what Paul VI MAY HAVE thought or felt, I ask all bloggers to provide evidence from what he ACTUALLY said or wrote.

Here is an example of what Paul VI actually said, and whether we agree with him or not, we must admit that it expresses his mind:

"The reform about to take place everywhere is the response to an authoritative mandate of the Church. It is an act of obedience, a matter of the Church's being consistent. It is a step forward in the Church's genuine tradition. It is a clear sign of faithfulness and vitality to which we must all give ready allegiance. It is not a fad, a fleeting or optional experiment, the invention of some dlettante. The reform is a law thought out by authorities in the field of liturgy, debated and studied at length. We would do well to welcome it with joyous enthusiasm and to put into practice exactly and with one accord" (Audience, Nov 19, 1969).

New Catholic said...

What is important is what he actually DID. We know what he said he intended to do... For instance, read our post from May 24, when you probably did not even know our blog.

With Peter said...

Humboldt- please read the first four chapters of Pastor Aeternus, which deal with the submission which is owed to the ordinary and universal authority of the Church. In sum, the canons of Vatican I anathematized the opinion that the Pope must only be followed when he is speaking "ex cathedra." This is reaffirmed with even greater specificity in the Vatican II dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, no. 25.

I also strongly recommend Leo XIII's great encyclical Satis Cognitum, which makes it very clear that hierarchical authority must be obeyed in all circumstances (especially paragraphs 12-15). My favorite line from this encyclical is as follows: "He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those, who like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome."

I think Leo XIII may have been quoting somebody else, but this is irrelevant.

With Peter said...

New Catholic- This may surprise you, but I followed your blog for many, many months before signing up for a user id. Heh, heh, bet you sometimes wish I didn't do that?

What I am trying to say is something that I think you of all people would most appeciate: It is important to limit speculation and pay attention to the facts. To interpret Paul VI's (or anyone's) thoughts to be contrary to his statements is highly dubious. In other words, knowing the documents of Paul VI is of the highest importance in commenting on what he DID.

New Catholic said...

Within the limits of his authority, with-peter... PLEASE, let us limit the repetitiveness and antagonizing which which is typical of the so-called "trolls".

If the Pope sees you somewhere and orders you to sweep the street, must you follow his order, by religious obedience? You may choose to do so, but are you under the religious obligation to do so?

Please, let us avoid artificial discussions here. PLEASE! I do not want to close discussion after discussion here.

humboldt said...

"With Peter dijo...
Humboldt- please read the first four chapters of Pastor Aeternus, which deal with the submission which is owed to the ordinary and universal authority of the Church. In sum, the canons of Vatican I anathematized the opinion that the Pope must only be followed when he is speaking "ex cathedra." This is reaffirmed with even greater specificity in the Vatican II dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, no. 25."

Yes thank you, however what happens when the Popes gives wrong opinions. Can this happen? Actually isn't this the whole issue of dispute between the so called traditionalists and the so called progressivists, represented by Paul VI's decisions.

I believe that one of the areas that the magisterium of the Church has neglected, and which I believe is of the essence and importance to the Catholic faith is the issue of obedience that all faithfull are due to have to God. After all our God is the God of the Holy Scriptures, since it is the word of God. And our salvation comes from obedience to the commandments of God, and the Pope has to give example of obedience to Go.

A lot has been said about the authority in the church, but very little has been said about the obedience that the hierarchy is compelled to have to the Word of God.

All the discussions are centered in the validity of the Pope's pronouncements by itself, but very little is said about what does obedience mean to the Pope, and I am not talking about the issue of communion in the Church, but of obedience of the Church to his Master and Savior.

Vatican I defined that the Pope has to be obedient to God.

Maybe this is where the failure resides, in that the Popes since Paul VI have overemphasized the obedience to him, but have neglected to show obedience to the Tradition of the church: Sacred Scripture and Magisterium of the church. And this has been the greastest mistake of the Novus Ordo Church. AMDG