A kind WDTPRSer sent me a link to a story in the The Times about the Motu Proprio.
An article by Ruth Gledhill mentions the resistence coming from German bishops to the MP. She claims that the Pope will not be deterred. Here it is, edited and with my emphases.
The Pope is going ahead with plans to bring back the traditional Latin Mass in spite of objections from German bishops, sources have told The Times.
Pope Benedict XVI is understood to have signed an “indult”, or permission, that would allow Roman Catholics worldwide to celebrate the Tridentine Rite whenever they wished. At present the old rite can be said only with special permission from a diocesan bishop.
The return of the Tridentine Rite would represent a triumph for traditionalists and be an indication of the Pope’s determination to reinforce conservative Catholic doctrine as one of his most powerful weapons in the fight against secularism.
…
The document had been expected earlier but is understood to have been delayed after a seven-page document of objections by German bishops was sent to the Pope.
Among other things, the Germans were anxious about a Good Friday prayer calling for the conversion of the Jews. A wider revolt by bishops’ conferences around the world would have seen off the indult, but in the end the Germans were isolated in their protest. However, when the permission is published, it is thought likely to exclude prayer for the conversion of the Jews, which leaders of the German and the British councils of Christians and Jews have spoken out against.
It could also include an “opt-out clause”, allowing bishops to prohibit it at a local level, which would placate both the German and the modernist French bishops.
…
"Modernist French bishops"!!
In any event, I seriously doubt there will be an "opt-out" clause for any individual bishops. That would entirely negate the point of the document.
I also suspect the permission will be granted for use of the 1962 Missale Romanum as it is.
Part of the problem comes from the fact that many priests saying the "old Mass" are using some edition previous to the 1962 Missale.
Loading ...
Modernist French Bishops?
Since last week, and the nomination of Mgr Ginoux at Montauban, there are with Mgr Centène, appointed in 2005, two bishops friends of the benedictin 1962-missal abbey “Le Barroux”…
2 between 100 modernist: pray for them, please!
In any event, I seriously doubt there will be an “opt-out” clause for any individual bishops. That would entirely negate the point of the document.
That always puzzles me about many journalists. I know that most have to grasp fairly complex issues on short notice. And I understand that most are trained to present the conflict in any news event by showing at least nominal opposition to the main theme. But it has to make some kind of sense. Doesn’t she realize that she is contradicting her own text?
The opt-out sentence would seem to indicate another source, probably some liberal(s) trying to undermine the document before it’s actually made public. But why didn’t she say: “Other sources”?
Since last week, and the nomination of Mgr Ginoux at Montauban, there are with Mgr Centène, appointed in 2005, two bishops friends of the benedictin 1962-missal abbey “Le Barroux 
2 between 100 modernist: pray for them, please!
I have been told that Abp Vingt Trois has visited Fontgombault. My guess is that is happened when he was ordinarius of Tours.
Taking out the Good Friday prayers is ridiculous. If the pope did that, I would be very angry. The Jews need to convert, and maybe this motu propio will be a good opportunity to get some of them to the Church’s side. And it’s not anti-Semitic to pray for their conversion at all.
With the qualifying “perfidis†removed, one needs to ask these bishops what objection there could possibly be to the rest of the prayer.
As Sister taught us long ago, it is the most loving thing we could possibly pray for: conversion of others to the Roman Catholic Church.
Older Missals also have a Good Friday prayer “Oremus et pro Christianissimo Imperatore nostro . . . †– no question of turning that into the feminine form for Angela – or even Mr. Sarkozy!
At any rate, even as regards “perfidis,†I always liked Monsignor Knox’s translation: “Pray we also for the misbelieving Jews . . . †and his explanation: “They are not unbelieving. They believe. But wrongly. Or, please God, not yet fully.â€
(sorry, I had posted this to the wrong entry)
Ruth Glendhill is a big spin journalist, when it comes to reporting on Roman affais. Hardly reliable at all.
The use of earlier editions of the “Tridentine” missal can hardly constitute an offense, in comparison to what else in going on in the world today with the new Roman rite. There is credible arguments to suggest that the pre-conciliar changes to the liturgy, were not all that good as they were hyped out to be (e.g. Holy week changes to Holy Saturday reduced the prophecies from 12 to 4, but in the 1970 Missal about 5 more were restored making it 9 in total). John XXIII could never get used to the new Pius XII psalter of 1945 and continued saying the old vulgate one right upto his death.
The Holy Father will change nothing.
God bless you.
It only makes sense that he would do it now, after his trip to Brazil. If it were before, they would have obscured his message to Brazil with the indult.
For the first time in the last two years i’m FINISHED speculating about this. There’s always an excuse why it hasn’t come out: His Holiness doesn’t want it to distract from Advent, then from Christmas, then from Easter, then from the fight in Italy, then from his Brazil trip. There will always be something it will distract from!!! I’ll just keep going to my indult. If that’s taken away, find a traditional chapel and pray for forgiveness. But enough of the speculation — it obviously isn’t helping the situation!
(OK, ready to receive my sour grapes award!)
sigh…. Any point in practicing my Tridentine rubrics for Ascension Thursday, Fr. Z?
“…that would allow Roman Catholics worldwide to celebrate the Tridentine Rite whenever they wished.â€
Surely it is going to allow priests worldwide to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, at THEIR choice, as they might nowadays opt for a particular Penitential Rite. A diocese where no priests are willing to celebrate the Tridentine Rite, is in some parts of the world, a distinct problem for the laity. Indeed, here in the UK, as in the US, I would imagine that the numbers of priests making this option would be quite low, though the number is growing. For me it makes it all the more interesting that in France and Germany, the Bishops are obviously worried about losing control of, and even the ability to celebrate in part of their diocese.
What it is going to do, which they should regard as positive is allow parishes to be run by those priests who only celebrate the Tridentine Rite, with diminishing numbers of priests this should be blessing, though having parallel usages will change the face of the Church.
The whole point of the MP is that the local bishop will not be able to say “no” to any priest who wants to use Latin Mass. Why would the Pope want to give the bishops a way to to “get around” the whole deal? I can’t understand why some bishops are so against the Latin Mass in the first place.
Actually, if executed properly, the opt-out clause could be a very good thing:
1. Don’t clearly define the opt-out clause in the document (shouldn’t be a challenge — Rome stopped defining things in the mid 1960’s).
2. Bishops wishing to exercise the opt-out will be instructed to contact the Papal Nuncio, who will
3. Give a refresher course to the bishop in question on the significance and perpetuity of the motu proprio Quo Primum as well as
4. Inform the bishop in question that in this case “opt out” means the bishop submits his resignation to the Holy Father.
Following these simple steps with even the most casual degree of Italian “efficiency” should work wonders in changing the “modernist to Catholic” ratio among the bishops conferences of France and many other countries.
Whether or not it would make any sense, and however unwise it might sound, I wondered whether this “journalist” was trying to allude to the possibility that the Pope might make some concession to the French and German bishops for their dioceses in France and Germany — while liberating the TLM for the rest of the world without these French and German restrictions.
Heartland Catholic: Having read it, I vastly prefer your much better opt-out clause. And it would be very unfair to apply it only to the French and Germans. We need it just as badly here in the U.S.
Here’s an idea for a better opt-out option:
“if a bishop has concerns about the propriety of one of his priests offering the Tridentine Mass, that bishop should have full access to the Ecclesia Dei commission.
Based on a bishop’s written and well-documented petition, the Ecclesia Dei commission should then be required, within a reasonable time period, to respond to the bishop’s request to disallow an individual priest from offering the Tridentine Mass. It would only be fair, of course, that the priest in question be permitted to continue offering said Latin Masses until the Ecclesia Dei commission completes its examination of the bishop’s plea. Such examination would justly weigh the evidence submitted by the bishop against the clear intent of the Motu Proprio in question.
IF the bishop has made a clear case, based on Canon Law and the express desires of the Motu Proprio, then by all means, the bishop should maintain the authority to replace that individual priest with another priest who is capable and willing to continue offering the Tridentine Mass in that location.”
The opt-out options mentioned so far all envision the possibility of a bishop who allows too few priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. And of course that is the current situation in some places.
But with a wide-open indult, one can envision the sudden new possibility of bishops who permit too many priests to celebrate the TLM, that is, by not screening them for the necessary qualifications to do so. If there is a greater demand for the TLM than can easily be met, then celebration of the TLM could become a feather in a priest’s cap (imagine that!), and priests who are unqualified to celebrate the TLM may attempt to do so anyway if not prevented by their bishops. Could this not turn out to be a serious problem that threatens abuses in the TLM?
“one can envision the sudden new possibility of bishops who permit too many priests to celebrate the TLM, that is, by not screening them for the necessary qualifications to do so”
I would tend to think that bishops who encourage widespread celebration of the TLM would tend to be orthodox, and thus more concerned with liturgical praxis than your average NO bishop. So this is a remote possibility, but probably not a primary concern.
Father Bartoloma: sigh…. Any point in practicing my Tridentine rubrics for Ascension Thursday, Fr. Z?
Father, there are many Catholics in New Jersey longing for the Old Rite. Why not just start praying the Mass
for the faithful and see what happens? If you’ve never been directly told no by your bishop than why just assume
he’d be against it?
I’m not saying all priests should defy their superiors but if you’ve never been told no, and the old mass has
never been abrogated, then I can’t see a reason that you shouldn’t be able to pray the mass this Thursday …
According to Bishop Fellay, when he met the H Father in August 2005, the Bishop
pointed out that Archbishop Lefebvre believed that he was acting in a state of
emergency in 1988 (which, if accepted, would make his excommunication null &
void). The H Father replied, ‘Yes, but since Ecclesia Dei, there is no longer a
state of emergency … except possibly in France and Germany.’ If Bp Fellay
recalled and reported that correctly (and if I have remembered it right), then
the LAST THING the H Father is going to do is let the French and German bishops
off the hook.
But anyway, it’s all still speculation. I’m sure Ruth Gledhill’s sources are no
more authoritative than Fr Z’s; which is why I visit this blog more often than
I read the Times!
“…if you’ve never been told no, and the old mass has
never been abrogated, then…”
There is much, I think, in what you say, Gravitas. That was certainly the case for a certain priest in London who in the middle of a report on parish school inspections informed the archibishop that he was also plunking down a Tridentine mass in the middle of the Sunday schedule. The archbishop’s response was, “Oh. Tell me how it goes.” It has been an enduringly and manifestly successful integration.
I think if more priests employed this tack to begin with, we would be witness to a moot point regarding Moti Proprii. (Is that latin correct?!)
Whether or not it would make any sense, and however unwise it might sound, I wondered whether this “journalist†was trying to allude to the possibility that the Pope might make some concession to the French and German bishops for their dioceses in France and Germany—while liberating the TLM for the rest of the world without these French and German restrictions.
But excluding the French and Germans would have little effect on bringing the SSPX back into the fold. Besides which, why have any exception for the French and Germans?
From what I’ve read and heard, this is my GUESS at what the putative MP will contain:
* A de-restriction of the use of the 1962 Missal (also OP, OCart, and OCarm rites) covering any private mass and 30+ people (cf SSPX).
* The institution of at least one Latin mass every Sunday in Cathedrals and large parishes (this was supposedly contained in the document written in the late 80’s but tabled by JPII). The opt out would be that these masses could be Novus Ordo or the 1962 Missal.
* A society of Pontifical Right, headed by a bishop and under a Papal Commission.
But with a wide-open indult, one can envision the sudden new possibility of bishops who permit too many priests to celebrate the TLM, that is, by not screening them for the necessary qualifications to do so.
The whole point of the de-restriction is that use of the 1962 Missal is permitted by the Holy See, not a local bishop.
If there is a greater demand for the TLM than can easily be met, then celebration of the TLM could become a feather in a priest’s cap (imagine that!), and priests who are unqualified to celebrate the TLM may attempt to do so anyway if not prevented by their bishops. Could this not turn out to be a serious problem that threatens abuses in the TLM?
I doubt that will be a problem.
Based on a bishop’s written and well-documented petition, the Ecclesia Dei commission should then be required, within a reasonable time period, to respond to the bishop’s request to disallow an individual priest from offering the Tridentine Mass. It would only be fair, of course, that the priest in question be permitted to continue offering said Latin Masses until the Ecclesia Dei commission completes its examination of the bishop’s plea. Such examination would justly weigh the evidence submitted by the bishop against the clear intent of the Motu Proprio in question.
Of course, the irony is that most of those bishops want nothing to do with the Ecclesia Dei Commission.
ALL: If you are posting a RESPONSE to someone PLEASE have the courtesy to begin your comment with the NAME or HANDLE of the person to whom you are speaking.
If you don’t provide the NAME as the FIRST WORD, it becomes impossible to see who is talking to whom.
Would you all kindly consider this an ironclad rule?
John Polhamus:
It’s actually Motu Proprio, but you were close.
Yes, you’re exactly right. I think too many priests and laity ask when there is no need to ask. The mass went from assumably banned, to never banned and every priest can say it privately, to the indult, to where we are now. If
even an eigth of the priests would just start publicaly praying the traditional mass then there wouldn’t be an issue.
There’s an old line, “Do first and ask for forgiveness second.” I think more of our clergy need to, as Nike would
say, “Just Do It” and ask for forgivess, if needed, afterwards.
Again, not suggesting to disobey if their bishops come down on them — although i wouldn’t mind! — but that’s
assuming that the bishops will come down on them. Many will but some won’t. And it can’t hurt to try!
Gledhill, who seems to me to be as well informed and direct as any MSM writer, has more to say on her story at this link:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/05/latest_on_tride.html
Thanks for the follow-up link, Fr. Thompson. I was very interested to see the following in the last paragraph:
[i]”But the Pope seems to have strangely little real power. He is surrounded in the Vatican by people who oppose the Latin Mass. Cardinal Arinze is on the side of the German bishops, and Cardinal Sodano still won’t get out of his [former] office…[/i]
Fr. Z, any insights into this? I know you are on good terms with Cardinal Arinze; why would he be on the side of the German bishops?
What about priests who wish to offer exclusively the Traditional Mass? Do you think the motu proprio would permit that?
Sean
Cardinal O’Malley of Boston feels that the Universal Induit is only of interest to Europeans?!
That response was part of a even-handed report on the TLM by a local cable news show.
I am so tired of hearing these ridiculous reports of the upcoming Motu Proprio.You would think by the reaction of so many priests and bishops that the Pope was going to end the ban on abortion or something like that!I will believe the Indult when I see it and not a day before.I love when I read that the Holy Father will release it in his own good time.I guess two generations of Catholics being denied the old mass is not enough.lol Thanks
If, as rumored, the motu proprio is delayed, because the Holy See is preparing an “updated” edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum or a supplement to it with the feasts of the saints added to the universal calendar since Vatican II as well as some new prefaces, I fear that all the Good Friday prayers in the 1962 Missale will be suppressed and replaced with those in the 1970 and later editions of the Missale in “keeping with the spirit of Vatican II.” Also, they may be “permitted” to be said in the vernacular, as the renewal of baptismal vows is done at the Easter Vigil, and also because those prayers are the equivalent of the prayer of the faithful (or universal prayer) recited in the vernacular at “Novus Ordo” Masses.
[Comment by Andrew — 14 May 2007 @ 3:52 pm] “Taking out the Good Friday prayers is ridiculous.”
[When there are lots of comments, it would be good to put the date/time down, too, folks!]
I am no expert, but there sure does seem to be a lot of variety in the translation of the Good Friday prayers.
The Boston College Center for “Christian-Jewish Learning” gives this translation:
2) For the conversion of the Jews. Let us pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.
Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord…
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/1962_missal.htm
My Saint Andrew Bible Missal, printed by Biblica in Bruges, Belgium , “Prepared by a Missal Commission of St Andrew’s Abbey”, Nihil Obstat (Danneels) March 25, 1962; Imprimatur (De Keyzer), May 16, 1963; Copyrights 1960 and 1962; Forwarding letter by Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston (undated) has this translation:
[8]) For the conversion of the Jews. Let us pray also for the Jews[.] [May] the Lord our God [tear] the veil from their hearts [so] that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.
Let us pray[.]
[Let us kneel.]
[Comment: It is only by loving them that we will invite our brothers of Israel to join in our march to the land of real freedom.]
[Arise.]
Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy [the word “even” omitted here] to the Jews[.] [Hear] the prayers which we offer for [the words “the blindness of” omitted here] that people[.] [May] they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ[.] [May they be brought out of all]darkness. Through the same our Lord…
The Second Vatican Council first convened on October 11, 1962
My St Andrew’s Missal has 1,536 pages. Will the Motu Proprio be stopped because of two sentences?
RBrown:
“A de-restriction of the use of the 1962 Missal (also OP, OCart, and OCarm rites) covering any private mass and 30+ people (cf SSPX).
The Dominican rite is not restricted in the first place, at least not by Rome. I attend one quite often at my Dominican parish.
What I am personally hoping is that, in addition to giving specific permission to use the older missal, he also gives permission for the use of the older rites for all the sacraments, and the Divine Office, plus the older book of blessings.
The Dominican rite is not restricted in the first place, at least not by Rome. I attend one quite often at my Dominican parish.
Comment by Seumas
That has varied from place to place. Fr Augustine knows the history of the situation well.
My understanding is that the OP rite was restricted in the same indirect manner as the 1962 Missal, simply by Paul VI making it clear that the Novus Ordo was to be the norm.
I’ll believe it when I see it. And if it does come out, which I do pray for. I doubt I will see it in any of my local RC parishes for many, many years to come. I have asked local priests in my area, if they would have at least one Tridentine Latin Mass a week, if the MP comes out. And got the negative attitude from all of them. Of course they only listen to members in their own age group or if your rich and give allot of cash to the Parish. Hence why I will stick with my local Eastern Orthodox Parish, and the Divine Liturgy. And not the feminist Divine Liturgy that the EC are working on. My soul can’t wait for a miracle!.
Alter Tomassus said: “If, as rumored, the motu proprio is delayed, because the Holy See is preparing an ‘updated’ edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum or a supplement to it with the feasts of the saints added to the universal calendar since Vatican II as well as some new prefaces, I fear that all the Good Friday prayers in the 1962 Missale will be suppressed and replaced with those in the 1970 and later editions of the Missale in ‘keeping with the spirit of Vatican II.'”
That rumor is false. Cardinal Kasper has already told a Jewish group in Germany that the decision the Pope has made cannot now be unmade, and that therefore there is nothing that can be done about the 1962 Missal’s prayer for the conversion of the Jews. The Pope has signed the Motu Proprio, granting freedom to use the 1962 Missal, with the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Just be patient and let the Holy Father make the Motu Proprio public when he deems it is best.
As Robert Brown has asked. The use of the Dominican Rite by priests of the order has been governed since June 2, 1969, by this decree of the SCR:
“At the request of the Most Reverend Father Aniceto Fernandez, Master General of the Order of Friars Preachers, by a letter of 23 May 1969, we willingly grant, in virtue of the powers given to this Sacred Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, that the following may be adopted for the Order of Friars Preachers as a whole, namely:
“1. The Roman Missal established by the decree of the Sacred Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, and promulgated by Pope Paul VI;
“2. The universal norms for the liturgical year and the new general Roman Calendar approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Paul VI, in the apostolic documents The Celebrating of the Paschal Mystery, issued 14 February 1969, as well as the Litany of the Saints.
“Attention should be paid, however, to the following:
“(a) After the adoption of the Roman Missal for the entire Order of Friars Preachers, the Master General may grant to the priests of the whole Order, or Provincials to their subjects, permission to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass according to the Dominican Rite which has been in effect up to the present time.” etc.
Thus the status of the Dominican Rite since 1969 has always been similar to the freer status of the pre-Vatican II Roman Rite since Ecclesia Dei. It may be celebrated with permission of the priest’s provincial superior or the Master.
I know of no friar who has requested such permission for private Mass to have ever been refused. In my province, however, it is the general practice not to celebrate publically without first getting permission of the local pastor. If there is to be recurring celebration, as mentioned by a poster above, it is good form that the bishop also be informed. These are decent courtesies.
There may be places where provincials have interpreted the rescript narrowly (e.g., as only for the aged and infirm) but I have not heard of such cases. Pere Gy (RIP), the French Dominican liturgist and canonist suggested that the tone of Ecclesia Dei (“generous”) etc., are suitable for interpreting our rescript.
Father Z: you wrote: Part of the problem comes from the fact that many priests saying the “old Mass” are using some edition previous to the 1962 Missale.
With respect, is this really a problem? The tradition of the liturgy does not spring from 1962 any more than it springs from 1970. I ask, not as a loaded question, but sincerely, what role does Quo Primum have, if indeed the traditional Mass was not abrogated, as we all believe it was not? What is your opinion of the customs of some orders, communities, etc., that have permission to have recourse to elements of the Mass predating 1962?
God bless you for your work here.
thetimman: With respect, is this really a problem?
Well, yes… this is really a problem. The Holy See has given permission to use the 1962 edition. In 1962 it was the 1962 rubrics that were to be used, not some earlier edition’s. This is the last pre-Conciliar edition of the Missale, and it is one with the Holy See’s approval.
If there are communities out there who say they have permission to do things from before the 1962 edition…well I would want to know what they are and who gave the permission (but not in the comments in this entry, mind you. – Leave that to e-mail or another entry.)
I think there should be unity of liturgical practice in this regard, not a pick and choose approach regarding what some people prefer.
Well, part of the problem is that for nearly 2,000 years the tridentine mass was the norm for the whole universal Church, and by this I mean the canon, for all time, so that there was unity. However, since Vatican II and its so called reforms, we have had all kinds of dispute as pertaining to the mass. According to Pope Pius V’s infallible magesterial teaching, the tridentine rite of mass was to be used in perpetuity, and anathematized anyone who would use a missal other than the one promulgated by himself; now we have Paul VI comes out with a new missal and a new mass and it stirs all this discord among those who follow the magesterial teachings of Pius V, and those who would follow the innovations of Paul VI and the new missal. The fact of the matter is that the old canon of the mass is the same under any missal from 1962 and before; so, what I think the earlier fellow was trying to ask is, why would the same canon which existed only a few years previous to 1962 be forbidden, and then the same canon in 1962 still be allowed? Thanks for your time.
Leon said: “According to Pope Pius V’s infallible magesterial teaching, the tridentine rite of mass was to be used in perpetuity, and anathematized anyone who would use a missal other than the one promulgated by himself;”
You don’t seem to understand the Catholic doctrine of infallibility, Leon. Disciplinary, legal decrees are never infallible and irreformable.
Frankly, by your logic, the Eastern Catholic Churches, which have never used the Tridentine Missal, have never been in full communion with the Church, and the Latin Church since the introduction of the Pauline Missal has ceased being the Catholic Church.
Leon: for nearly 2,000 years the tridentine mass was the norm for the whole universal Church,
2000 years, you mean, minus the 1570 years before the Tridentine Mass become the norm for the Latin norm?
+JMJ
I think what Fr. Zuhlsdorf may be getting at is the use of the pre-1962 Missale as a means of real division within the “independent chapels†and groups that have broken with the SSPX (as far as I know, SSPX continues to use the 1962 Missale, but I haven’t been to one of their Masses since 1986). Constructive comments about the merits of the Pius XII changes to Holy Week aside, it looks to me as if some of the groups use it as a barometer of whether one is traditional enough.
So many of those who had difficulties with the wholesale liturgical changes in the 1960s and 1970s have been in these groups that have been effectively without shepherds for many years (I mean in a practical sense, I don’t have competency to make any assessment of canonical status). Some explicitly reject the 1962 Missale because it contains the Holy Week liturgy implemented by Pius XII in 1956, led by Archbishop Bugnini, the architect of the Novus Ordo Missae. Others maintain that no pope has the authority, as Pope John XXIII did by adding the name of St Joseph, to make any change at all to the Roman Canon.
If the Holy Father’s intention is to bring the alienated traditionalists back into the mainstream of the Church, he may be considering the “we’re more traditional than the SSPX†element as well.
In Christ,
Like I said, “By this I mean the canon” which consists of the old prayer of consecration.
According to Catholic teaching There are three conditions that need to be met for a pope to teach infallibly: [1] the pope must
carry out his duty as pastor and teacher of all Christians; [2] he must teach in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; and [3] he must explain a doctrine of faith or morals to be believed by the universal Church. If a pope fulfills these conditions, he, through the divine assistance promised him as successor of Peter, operates infallibly, as the following definition of Vatican Council I teaches.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4: “… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, [1] WHEN CARRYING OUT
THE DUTY OF THE PASTOR AND TEACHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS [2] IN ACCORD WITH HIS SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY [3] HE EXPLAINS A DOCTRINE OF FAITH OR MORALS TO BE HELD BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that
infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in
defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from
himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone
presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be
anathema.â€
This is usually fulfilled when canons are involved like most statements contaning “let him be anathema” or “let him be condemned” or something to that effect.
If Quo Primum meets these requirements, then it can be treated as infallible, further, the substantiation that the Pope cannot teach error.
My wife bears the same first name as the venerable Catholic lady to whom (according to Ms. Gledhill of The Times) Pope Benedict said “Something is coming in May”. The last name of this venerable lady was received at his baptism by Pope St. Gregory VII, who on both old and new calendars is commemorated on May 25, which falls this year on the Friday before Pentecost.
Gregory VII was elected pope in 1073, when the Church was thoroughly corrupted by simony and clerical incontinence, with many priests living openly as married men, squandering the tithes and offerings of the faithful on their families and less commendable interests. He undertook the herculean task of sweeping clean the Church of this pervasive corruption and of overturning the system of investiture (the bestowal of church offices and preferments by political leaders).
He was opposed resolutely by kings and nobleman but ultimately prevailed against all odds — it was before Gregory VII that Henry IV famously stood in the snow at Canossa. But perhaps most of all, he and his reforms were opposed bitterly and openly by the bishops of France and Germany, many of whom had to be deposed before it was over. (Imagine that! A valuable historical lesson?)
Ms. von Hildebrand’s namesake points out that a novena in support of our currently besieged but resolute Pope that started tomorrow on Ascension Thursday would conclude on St. Gregory’s day.
John,
The principal criticisms of Vatican II are three. The first is that the drafters of the documents were theologians who introduced deliberate ambiguities into them in order to be able to use them later to undermine the Catholic faith. The evidence for this is that the important theologians in question – Kung, Rahner, Schillebeeckx – all openly renounced the faith after the Council, and not just Catholic teaching, but the basic notion of the divinity of Christ; and that Schillebeeckx publicly admitted that this deliberate introduction of ambiguity had happened.
Although I disagree strongly with the work of all three theologians you mention, I wouldn’t agree that they all openly renounced the faith after the Council. By definition, ambiguities do not openly renounce or announce anything.
To a great extent all three turned against the by-the-numbers, univocal approach of Counter Reformation theology. But two (Sch & Rah) rejected the analogical approach of St Thomas, instead producing equivocal (ambiguous) theology that was suited to Ecumenism with Protestants and even agnostics.
The third (K) has generally bought into Protestant a priori ideas, found in some of form criticism. He seems to lack the intellectual capacity to challenge it.
The second is that Vatican II’s clear statements about adapting the Church and her teachings to the world are incompatible with basic Catholic teaching, and with the basic notion that the teachings of the Church are divine revelation – it is insane to suppose that a divine message should be adapted to the world.
The teaching of doctrine must be varied according to the audience. As someone with Ecclesiastical degrees and experience teaching theology, I have to explain things differently according to the audience. With theological beginners (incl both seminarians and the laity), I have to reduce everything to apples and oranges. With more advanced students I am able to use technical language that is a kind of theological shorthand. With unbelievers (e.g., my family) I have to approach it differently.
The third is that the teaching of the Council on religious freedom is incompatible with Catholic tradition. This does not involve any picking and choosing among Church teachings, because Lefebvre’s argument is that the conciliar teaching is professedly not infallible, and thus that it has less weight than the prior teaching it contradicts; since this prior teaching is repeated with great insistence by many different popes in many encyclicals it should probably be called infallible, and is certainly irreformable. One answer to this is that the teaching does not contradict those encyclicals; but if this is so, whence the opposition to Lefebvre’s maintaining the position of those encyclicals?
The criticism of the Novus Ordo liturgy is that it was composed by people who rejected Catholic teaching on the sacraments, and built this rejection into their work, so that the new liturgy does not express crucial Catholic teaching, and is a bad liturgy on that account.
I don’t know anyone who thinks that the new liturgy was composed by people who rejected Catholic teaching. IMHO, they were employing the aforementioned ambiguities so that both Catholics (who believe in Transubstantiation and the Sacrificial nature of the mass) and Protestantism (who don’t) could use the same liturgy. Was this a good idea? No. Did is produce good liturgy? No. Did it do a hatchet job on the liturgy? Yes.
the evidence for this is the careful textual examination of the prayers of the new liturgy done by Lauren Pristas, and the fact that the designer of the new liturgy, Abp. Bugnigni, was on his own admission removed from his post by Paul VI for being a Freemason. In addition to the evidence for these separate claims is the fact that Vatican II was followed by a calamitous and historically utterly unprecedented collapse of faith and morals in the Church. I should say that I have no links with the SSPX, and am not defending Lefebvre’s consecration of bishops – that is an entirely separate issue. What I am saying is that Card. Ratzinger’s talk above does not address Lefebvre’s criticisms of the Council and the postconciliar liturgy, and that I suspect the reason he does not do so is that these criticisms are clear statements of the truth. Until these truths are admitted, any hope of reversing the decline in the Church is a vain one.
1. JRatzinger made it clear that it is a mistake to use Gaudium et Spes as the hermeneutic governing all the other documents.
2. Generally, the Lefebvrist criticism of conciliar documents is based on univocal interpretation of ambiguous texts–incl the document on religious freedom.
3. The are many strands in the documents of Vat II, some good and some not so good.
This is usually fulfilled when canons are involved like most statements contaning “let him be anathema†or “let him be condemned†or something to that effect.
If Quo Primum meets these requirements, then it can be treated as infallible, further, the substantiation that the Pope cannot teach error.
Comment by Leon
OK, but what is the doctrine re faith and morals taught in Quo Primum?
It is a matter of discipline and government of the Church, infallibly defined, as defined by Pope Pius IX in Vatican Council I, Session 4, in a canon from Chapter 3:
“If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power… let him be anathema.â€
Quo Primum says, in part: “Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church, will be the forfeiting of their books and a fine of one hundred gold ducats, payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury.”
Is that an infallible, irreformable definition pertaining to faith and morals? Does Vatican City’s adoption of the euro and long-ago abandonment of the ducat constitute a defection from the Apostolic Faith?
But you conveniently leave out where it is stated that this one is to remain in perpetuity – that means till the end of time. And he speaks in accord with his authority as can clearly be seen, as the head of the Church, and defines a liturgy to be used by the clergy in perpetuity, fulfilling all four requirements.
Sorry, but you said Quo Primum is an infallible and irreformable document. Now you seem to admit that it’s not infallible and irreformable in its entirety. It’s really just one aspect of Quo Primum that you claim to be an ex cathedra definition of a doctrine, the bit about “in perpetuity.”
But if you’re right that Quo Primum is an infallible ex cathedra definition of a doctrine, then how come none of the Popes, beginning with Pius V, knew that they had been forbidden from ever modifying the Missal? After all, as Fr. Zuhlsdorf has observed, every time a Pope canonised a new saint and added him or her to the calendar, that requires an alteration of the Missal. Do you really think St. Pius V meant to deprive his successors of the same supreme authority that he enjoyed? Consider this: if Vatican I’s doctrine about the authority and jurisdiction of the papacy is true, and if your interpretation of Quo Primum is correct, then Quo Primum’s denial of the supreme jurisdiction and authority of future pontiffs contradicts an infallible doctrinal definition of a papally-approved oecumenical council, which means Quo Primum cannot be infallible.
But then your interpretation of Quo Primum is dead wrong. It’s a disciplinary text, not a doctrinal one, and therefore cannot be an ex cathedra definition of a doctrine. “Defining a liturgy” is not “explaining a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church.” “In perpetuity” is not to be taken literally, because in practice it means “until some future Pope decrees otherwise.” No Pope has the authority to deny his successors the exercise of the Keys. Your interpretation of Quo Primum is irreconcilable with the Catholic faith and right reason.
I agree with Jordan Potter inasmuch as Quo Primum could not tie the hands of a subsequent Pope who had the same plenary disciplinary authority as St. Pius V himself. What the Saint was doing, however, was in the nature of a standardization of the existing Roman Missal, a conservation of the received tradition, and therefore he had the force of all history behind him.
As the present Holy Father stated so eloquently in The Spirit of the Liturgy, the Pope is not an absolute monarch over liturgical tradition, but rather he is its servant. It is because the received Roman Rite was an immemorial custom of the Church that its complete suppression in favor of a newly fabricated Missal would have been a clear injustice. Paul VI could only have attempted to do so as an act of raw power, not rightful authority, and as the 1986 Cardinals’ Commission concluded, he did not do it.
Legisperitus said: “Paul VI could only have attempted to do so as an act of raw power, not rightful authority, and as the 1986 Cardinals’ Commission concluded, he did not do it.”
I absolutely agree.
It is a matter of discipline and government of the Church, infallibly defined, as defined by Pope Pius IX in Vatican Council I, Session 4, in a canon from Chapter 3:
“If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power… let him be anathema.â€
No mention of infallibility.
It is not in dispute here whether papal authority is Full, Supreme, Universal, and Immediate. The question is whether all of that authority is infallible. And the answer is no, only that authority that is manifest in formally teaching faith and morals.
But that doesn’t answer the problem created by Quo Primum. We know that a pope can restrict a successor by teaching infallibly, i.e., no pope can undo the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The question is whether one pope can restrict the juridical authority of a successor by binding him in matters that are not directly doctrinal.
It is hard to read Quo Primum without concluding that Pius V in fact intended to bind his successors, both juridically and morally. It would also seem that Paul VI didn’t want to juridically challenge Quo Primum–he didn’t try to abrogate it. Instead, he turned loose forces that suppressed it, a moral rather than juridical abrogation.
Of course, the effect was the same. The Novus Ordo has been criticized for incorporating elements that permit its use by Protestants, who lack belief in the Sacrificial nature of the mass. Of course, that is what Pius V was trying to prohibit.
*
This relationship between a pope’s juridical and moral authority is interesting. Juridically, a pope has the authority to end the discipline of priestly celibacy. But whether he has the moral authority to do it is another matter.
First of all, the marks are there, go read it, second, he binds it upon ALL clergy FOREVER to use that canon and that canon alone, whether it is infallible or not, this would be enough to prove my point.
Third, it speaks of the CANON which cannot be changed by anyone, not even the Pope.
Fourth, concerning it binding power, even if it were not infallible, it would still be enough to prohibit all future pontiffs and clergy from using a canon other that the one codified by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum.
However, since the document is infallible as it has the marks laid out above from the requirements of Vatican I, it is enough.
Even Pius XII did not feel that he had the power to change the canon of the Mass. By this, I refer to the CONSECRATORY PRAYER CONTAINED IN THE CANON. THIS IS MY POINT though other subjects are involved.
I will prove this from the sayings of the popes themselves:
Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis (# 1), Nov. 30, 1947: “the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments,’ that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, “Exultate Deo,” Decree of union with the Armenians: “THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT ARE THE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR WITH WHICH HE EFFECTED THIS SACRAMENT.”
Leon said: “First of all, the marks are there, go read it,”
I’ve read it. The marks of an infallible ex cathedra definition of a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals are not there. You’re the first person I’ve ever heard of who has claimed Quo Primum is an infallible ex cathedra definition of doctrine. Certainly no Pope or Council has ever made any such claim. Strange, don’t you think? Shouldn’t somebody in the Magisterium have been able to figure this out before you did?
“second, he binds it upon ALL clergy FOREVER to use that canon and that canon alone, whether it is infallible or not, this would be enough to prove my point.”
No, he does not bind it upon “all” clergy — he only binds it on clergy of the Latin Rite. The Eastern Churches are not touched by Quo Primum. This is the second time you’ve claimed that the Missal of St. Pius V was the missal of the Universal Church. Fr. Zuhlsdorf already corrected your error, but now you have repeated it.
Also, if it is not infallible, then you have failed to prove your point, since one of your chief assertions is that it is infallible. Now you are shifting your position.
“Third, it speaks of the CANON which cannot be changed by anyone, not even the Pope.”
On the contrary, the canon was changed when St. Joseph was added by the Pope. Recall that you had claimed that the Roman Canon in 1962 was identical to the Roman Canon in previous missals going back to the time of St. Pius V. But that’s not true, which only goes to show that you really need to learn more about the Roman liturgy. (You also need to find out what the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is, since you still think a disciplinary text like Quo Primum could be an ex cathedra definition of doctrine.)
“Fourth, concerning it binding power, even if it were not infallible, it would still be enough to prohibit all future pontiffs and clergy from using a canon other that the one codified by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum.”
On the contrary, Quo Primum plainly says that other rites are permissible, not just the one codified by St. Pius V. Also, we have already established that it is impossible for a Pope to deprive his successors of the right to use the Keys. In disciplinary matters such as Quo Primum, there can be no irreformability — the Church can and does modify her laws under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
“Even Pius XII did not feel that he had the power to change the canon of the Mass. By this, I refer to the CONSECRATORY PRAYER CONTAINED IN THE CANON. THIS IS MY POINT though other subjects are involved.”
You’re trying to establish that it is a grave violation for anyone to modify the Roman Canon even slightly. Now, let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that the Roman Canon did not even exist in the days of the Apostles and therefore cannot itself be a part of the deposit of faith. Instead, let’s note that you are trying to prove that the entire Roman Canon is inviolate by quoting documents that show that only the words of consecration are inviolate. So, again you’ve failed to prove your point. It’s not the entire Canon, but only the words, “This is My Body,” and “This is My Blood” that are unchangeable.
Leon, many great minds far more gifted than you or I have demonstrated that “in perpetuity” is old Church legalese, not to be taken literally. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that St. Pius V really was trying to fix the Roman Missal in stone for the rest of eternity. The Roman liturgy had undergone quite a lot of development and change prior to the time of St. Pius V. It continued to undergo change after his day, though much less than it had undergone before. Could St. Pius V really have been so detached from the living reality of the divine gift of the liturgy that he wanted to put a halt to further liturgical development once and for all? Perhaps — but I wouldn’t wish to ascribe such hubris and impiety to so great a saint.
RBRown said: “The question is whether one pope can restrict the juridical authority of a successor by binding him in matters that are not directly doctrinal.”
The answer to that question is, “No,” because then it would mean all future Popes would be deprived of the authority that the Church believes all Popes enjoy. Now, I think the reform of the liturgy has been botched horribly, and looking at the consequences of the massive overhaul of the liturgy, it’s pretty clear that the liturgical reform has been a pastoral diasaster. Nevertheless, if you want to consider only the question of whether or not the liturgy can be reformed, whether or not the Roman Canon can be altered, well, if the Church believed that couldn’t be done, then why did the Pope and the entire Church (represented at the oecumenical council) decided to do it? Shouldn’t someone have said, “Wait a minute, we don’t have the authority to do that”? Consider also how the Roman Canon has been modified and rearranged in past centuries — and it was done on less authority than a solemn Council convened by the Pope. If they could do that in the past, why would the Church lack the authority to do it today? Again, I’m not saying it’s necessarily a wise thing for the Church to do — I’m only talking about what the Church is and isn’t permitted to do. The historical record, the Scriptures, and Tradition affirm that the Church does have the authority to modify the Roman Canon and to approve new anaphoras.
First of all, the marks are there, go read it, second, he binds it upon ALL clergy FOREVER to use that canon and that canon alone, whether it is infallible or not, this would be enough to prove my point.
But first you say that it is infallible, now you doubt it.
I do, however, think that Pius V has bound future popes. And I think that Paul VI agreed and tried to finesse the matter. As I already said, the problem is not that PVI promulgated a new mass (which he can do) but that he suppressed (morally rather than legally) the Roman Rite.
BTW, I’ve read it in Latin.
Third, it speaks of the CANON which cannot be changed by anyone, not even the Pope.
Fourth, concerning it binding power, even if it were not infallible, it would still be enough to prohibit all future pontiffs and clergy from using a canon other that the one codified by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum.
I tend to agree, but the Novus Ordo still contains the canon of the Roman Rite, which is the First Eucharistic prayer.
However, since the document is infallible as it has the marks laid out above from the requirements of Vatican I, it is enough.
Incorrect. See my earlier comments. This is obviously not a matter of infallibility, but I think a pope’s juridical power can be restricted by events prior to his papacy.
Even Pius XII did not feel that he had the power to change th/be canon of the Mass. By this, I refer to the CONSECRATORY PRAYER CONTAINED IN THE CANON. THIS IS MY POINT though other subjects are involved.
Paul VI didn’t change the canon of the mass. He kept the Roman canon and added more.
I will prove this from the sayings of the popes themselves:
Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis (# 1), Nov. 30, 1947: “the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments,’ that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign…â€
The text from SO has little relevance over this problem.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, “Exultate Deo,†Decree of union with the Armenians: “THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT ARE THE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR WITH WHICH HE EFFECTED THIS SACRAMENT.â€
The form of the Sacrament is not the entire rite, but the specific words in the rite that effect the change. Further, St Thomas (in the Eucharist) distinguishes between Essential and Substantial Sacramental Form.
Leon, many great minds far more gifted than you or I have demonstrated that “in perpetuity†is old Church legalese, not to be taken literally.
PV uses the phrase “in posterum perpetuis futuris temporibus”. I don’t think that can merely be explained away as legalese.
RBRown said: “The question is whether one pope can restrict the juridical authority of a successor by binding him in matters that are not directly doctrinal.â€
The answer to that question is, “No,†because then it would mean all future Popes would be deprived of the authority that the Church believes all Popes enjoy.
Your “No” contradicts what you wrote earlier, quoting Ratzinger from The Spirit of the Liturgy (“the Pope is not an absolute monarch over liturgical tradition, but rather he is its servant”. The fact that he is its servant deprives him of certain authority.
Further, reforming the Missal of Pius V is not the same as suppressing it.
“PV uses the phrase ‘in posterum perpetuis futuris temporibus’. I don’t think that can merely be explained away as legalese.”
It’s not “explaining away” to notice that old legal texts use that legal in a deliberately hyperbolic sense. However, I’m not the expert on these things, and have to accept what others have told me, as I cannot cite any other examples of the “in perpetuity” language in old Church texts. I do know, however, that in Illinois’ secular law at least, “in perpetuity” means 45 years, and “forever” means 30 years. (Seriously, that is how the courts have defined old contracts and covenants that used such language” Anyway, perhaps someone else can demonstrate what I have to take on faith.
“Your “No†contradicts what you wrote earlier, quoting Ratzinger from The Spirit of the Liturgy (‘the Pope is not an absolute monarch over liturgical tradition, but rather he is its servant’). The fact that he is its servant deprives him of certain authority.”
You must have me confused with someone else. I did not quote that passage from “The Spirit of the Liturgy,” at least not any time recently, and not in this discussion. It is, of course, true even though I didn’t quote it. But it doesn’t contradict what I said, and in fact proves that St. Pius V could not have perpetually bound his successors. Since St. Pius V was the servant of the liturgy and not its absolute monarch, that means he did not have any authority to set the Roman Canon in stone forever and ever and ever.
First off, I did not contradict or call into question my previous assertion. I should like to take this up somewhere besides a comment section on a post, where the issues can be better treated, but, since it is initiated here by my bad judgment, we will make do.
First off I will explain my above claim, that I call no doubt upon previous assertions from myself. What is meant is that, whether the document is infallible or no, it did do the said thing.
Second, again, what I meant by the whole thing, the consecration words of the host of the bread and wine, as thought that such had been outlined by the mention of “CONSECRATORY PRAYER” by which was meant the words which confect the sacrament of the Eucharist “For this is my body…”, which, was the focal point of the above papal quotes.
Third, my mistake, I forgot to take into account the Byzantine rite, thank you for pointing this out. I took for granted that it was known that I spoke of the Latin rite, the only one of my knowledge which was changed after Vatican II, which was what I was driving at.
Fourth, indeed that text has everything with what I was eventually arriving at, the substance of the matter and form pertaining to the confection of a sacrament, of which, my main point is the Eucharist.
To add to something is to change it; no?
If I add red food color to a bucket of water, it changes color; no?
Pope Pius V, Quo Primum, #: “Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.”
Hence we see that this canon was to be used by all.
Pope Pius V, Quo Primum: “This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women…”
Thus we see that it applies to all as I stated, and forever, that means in perpetuity.
But it also states that it is to be done in accord to the rites of the Church.
Pope Pius V, Quo Primum: “We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.”
Thus we see that nothing is to be added.
Pope Pius V, Quo Primum: “We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, … We order them in virtue of holy obedience …to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.”
Thus we see that this was supposed to be used by all patriarchs ect.
“Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity”
Thus we see that he speaks with his apostolic authority, a requirement for infallibility, and binds it in perpetuity.
He is speaking with the authority of St. Peter , no?
We also see that not only does the Pope have authority to speak with all authority in heaven and earth on faith and morals, but also in the discipline of the Church in any matter: Pope Pius IX in Vatican Council I, Session 4, in a canon from Chapter 3: “…the Roman Pontiff has… the office of inspection or direction… the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world”
It’s not “explaining away†to notice that old legal texts use that legal in a deliberately hyperbolic sense. However, I’m not the expert on these things, and have to accept what others have told me, as I cannot cite any other examples of the “in perpetuity†language in old Church texts. I do know, however, that in Illinois’ secular law at least, “in perpetuity†means 45 years, and “forever†means 30 years. (Seriously, that is how the courts have defined old contracts and covenants that used such language†Anyway, perhaps someone else can demonstrate what I have to take on faith.
I am familiar with the use of “perpetuity” in law, which is generally contrasted with “temporary” and refers to several years.
Pius V was 66 when his Missal was promulgated in 1570 and would die two years later. Even if we take your Illinois law example of 45 years (or 30 if you will) as the legal use of “perpetuity”, we still have Pius V restricting (via Quo Primum) at least 6-8 of his successors. Whether he intended to bind all successors, includ Paul VI, is another question. But we do know that Paul VI didn’t opt for a juridical challenge to Quo Primum.
You must have me confused with someone else. I did not quote that passage from “The Spirit of the Liturgy,†at least not any time recently, and not in this discussion. It is, of course, true even though I didn’t quote it. But it doesn’t contradict what I said, and in fact proves that St. Pius V could not have perpetually bound his successors. Since St. Pius V was the servant of the liturgy and not its absolute monarch, that means he did not have any authority to set the Roman Canon in stone forever and ever and ever.
Sorry, it was Legisperitus who cited the text.
On the other hand, the text refers not to Pius V but rather to Paul VI, whose liturgical innovation via the Novus Ordo brings into doubt whether he had functioned as the servant of the liturgy or rather an absolute monarch.
The Officium Petri like any Officium has not only rights but also responsibilities. Further, not all of these rights and responsibilities are juridically expressed–Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception 15 years before Vat I defined papal infallibility.
One of those responsibilities—-both moral and juridical–is to be the servant of liturgy, and that responsibility (according to what JRatzinger seems to be saying in the text) was ignored by Paul VI when the Novus Ordo was promulgated and the Roman Rite was suppressed. As I said before, even though he chose not to contradict Quo Primum juridically, nevertheless, he contradicted it morally–in the manner of an absolute monarch,