On this feast of St. Pope Pius V (+1572) I drill into one of his most famous acts as Roman Pontiff. Today we look into and listen to his Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, by which he promulgated the editio princeps of the Missale Romanum.
Of course there was an somewhat different version in an edition prior to the 1570 edition, in 1474, but for all our purposes, the 1570 is the first.
This history changing document came out of turbulent times. The Council of Trent had just closed and Pius, as Pope, was tasked with the standardization of the Church’s liturgy as a bulwark against attacks on the Catholic Faith on many fronts. Catholic identity was shaken by the theological revolt in the north, uncertain teachings, lack of unity in the expression of worship and even the menace of invasion by Islamic armies.
Because there is a reciprocal relation between what we believe and how we pray, our worship plays a key role in the shaping and maintaining of our Catholic identity in a difficult world.
However, centuries after the editio princeps of the “Tridentine” Roman Missal, decades after Paul VI issued his own Apostolic Constitution for the promulgation of the so-called Novus Ordo of the Roman Rite, confusing claims remain about the juridical force of Pius V’s Quo primum.
Some people maintained that Paul VI absolutely abolished the older, traditional “Tridentine” form of Mass with his own Constitution Missale Romanum.
Some people maintain that Pius V’s Quo primum can never be abrogated or abolished or modified even by other Popes and that it still has force of law.
While not trying to get too canonical, we drill into the questions, draw some conclusions, and hear the words of Pius V in their 16th century splendor.
You may surprised at how modern some of the saintly Pope’s actions sound.
[display_podcast]
http://www.wdtprs.com/podcazt/09_04_30.mp3
Loading ...
A very small quibble…the 1570 Missale wasn’t the editio princeps, which was more properly the 1474… [It seems the editio princips was 1570.]
Padre Pio also received an indult and used (exclusively, I believe) the older form of Mass.
Certainly the 1570 Missale was the first Pian Missal, in which restricted sense one could call it a first edition, but in the usual parlance “editio princeps” refers to the first printed edition of a work, which for the Missale Romanum was 1474. That Missale is, of course, very close to the Pian Missal of 1570.
Dr. Pretty much everywhere you look around, you find the 1570MR referred to as the editio princeps, including the photographic study edition put out by the Holy See. I think we are on pretty safe ground calling the 1570 the editio princeps for the purposes of this PODCAzT… thanks anyway. And I can hear the readers/listeners now. “But Father! But Father!”, they say. “It is known lippis et tonsoribus that there was a 1474 editio princeps and some like to call the 1570 the Missale Pianum. But this isn’t a doctoral thesis on pre-Tridentine sacramentaries and missals, is it?” Indeed not.
Isn’t today the feast day of Saint Catharine of Sienna?
Jack,
Padre Pio died in 1968. Since the new missal came out in 1969/70, I don’t see how he could have used an indult. I’ve seen a video of him celebrating Mass toward the end of his life, and it looked like a transitional-era Mass. Perhaps he did get an indult, but he sure didn’t live long enough to use it.
I’d be obliged to anyone who could provide a transcript since I can’t hear the podcast. Thank you. :)
I love Fr’s tone at “let him understand that he incurrs the wrath of almighty God.”
HAHAHAH
[Just after 34’… yah… that was fun! Gotta love the old days!]
There are those who claim that under Quo Primum no subsequent Pontiff could alter, revise or modify the missale romanum that was codified in 1570. When changes were made to the calendar or to the rites of the Holy Week by various Popes, these were explained away as minor changes that had nothing to do with the order of the Mass, and that the form of the Mass remained essentially the same since the 6th century. I agree that all the changes made before 1969, including the revisions to the rites of the Holy Week, did not alter the form of the Mass, unlike the Mass of Paul VI. However, to contend that no Pope could revise the order of the Mass as Paul VI did is to posit that Popes after Pius V had less authority than Pius V to regulate or make changes to the order of the Mass, which is nonsense. The supreme authority that the Pontiff has to regulate the Mass is such that if Pope St. Pius V had decided in 1571 to scrap the missale romanum he codified a year earlier and introduce the Novus Ordo Mass (as we know it now), he theoretically could. Thankfully he did not. The only coherent argument against this supreme authority of the Pope to radically change the order of the Mass is to contend as the late Msgr. Klaus Gamber did that the order of the Mass is part of the Church’s Sacred Tradition that has organically developed to its 1570’s form from the time of the early Church and hence could not be altered or changed. This merits serious consideration.
it sounds pretty serious. so did summorum pontificum. quo primum guarantees our right to mass according to our rite, and summorum pontificum reaffirms this. i did not receive communion on the feast of s. pius v because the priests of the order who run the parish i attend during the week refuse to celebrate mass according to the rite of pius v. receiving the eucharist from them has become a sacrament confirming my nonexistence and i am not sure this is what pius v or benedict xvi intend. priests go out of their way to make sure that the hymns of wesley are sung daily, that mass ad orientem is an impossibility, and that the candlesticks from the requiem mass surround the altar. but this arrangement makes the altar look like a big coffin, and those of us who are denied mass according to our rite nearly two years after summorum pontificum are made to feel like we are in it. i feel that receiving communion should make you feel more alive, and that your rite of worship is just as valid and as current as other people’s methods of worship.
Fr.Z, thanks for this. I’ve just downloaded it onto my ipod and will listen to it whilst cycling to and from work today. God bless you for your edifying work :)
Yes, there were changes to the liturgy subsequent to Quo Primum but there was never, until Vatican II, a radical REORIENTATION of that liturgy. Conciliarists get their hackles up whenever this is mentioned. I would ask them, though, to do some research so that they can look at the fruit of the VII liturgical changes vis-a-vis that of the pre-VII liturgy. However, I believe that most of them would not be bothered by those changes even if they were somehow able to summon the motivation to do the research—I wish that I were wrong about this, but my experience with conciliarists tells me I’m not.
Those who claim that Quo primum was never abrogated also deny that the Pope, by virtue of his office, has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always exercise this power freely (c. 331). If Quo primum cannot be abrogated, as some claim, then it follows that all subsequent popes after Pius V do not possess the power granted to them, in virtue of their office, in c. 331. It is an absurd claim.
CDN_Canonist — please point to the exact moment (document?) where Quo Primum was abrogated.
Ken,
Pius V’s Quo primum was a legislative act which required use of the Missale Romanum (1570). Laws enacted by one legislator can be be revoked by a successor (cf. c. 20). Paul VI did so with the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum, 3 April 1969.
I do believe that a Pope has the ability to alter rites of course, but in the light of tradition – that is not to veer off at an angle.
In fact Paul VI did the opposite of what St Pius V did. The latter consolidated on centuries of tradition and built a brick wall around an unassailably Catholic rite of Mass in the light of the Reformation. Paul VI knocked the wall down and put up a third rate liturgical reform full of ambiguities which let in the rain and the (Protestant) elements despite going into an equally if not more hostile time. Naturally it was an utter disaster. What was worse was that there was no serious call for such a reform at all. Vat II had only called for some simplifation not a re-write.
Unfortunately it was the lot of Paul VI to mean well but to act badly. His successors have tried to make the best of a bad lot, but it is qute hopeless. The U-turn on the question of the EF never having been abrogated (or obrogated) by this Pope simply exposes (and corrects) the nonsense coming from the reformers since the 70s. Summorum Pont is probably the most important step in getting the show back on the road for decades and a brave move by a brave Pope.
CDN_Canonist— clarity please – what is absurd? given…
assertion A: Quo primum was never abrogated
assertion B: Quo primum cannot be abrogated
You say that…
– those who assert A also assert B [I disagree, but ok]
– B is absurd.
– therefore A is absurd. [false! not demonstrated, genetic fallacy]
Most will agree that assertion B is absurd – but it is irrelevant.
The entire thesis of this blog post is A: NEVER ABROGATED
If you just meant to say B is absurd – well then say it and leave A out.
Gregor, that’s not even a close approximation of CDN_Canonist’s statements and arguments.
I think you’re confusing the proposition, “The 1962 edition of the Roman MIssal was never abrogated,” with the proposition, “Quo Primum can never be abrogated.” Quo Primum undoubtedly has been abrogated, even though the 1962 Missal never has been. Indeed, Summorum Pontificum would be incoherent if Quo Primum were still church law.
Given the fact that in matters of faith and morals the Magisterium of the Church cannot teach something and then subsequently contradict itself, will it not take some adroit hermeneutical gymnastics to “square” the teachings of Quo Primum with what has transpired since VII? I mean, assuming we believe in objective truth and the legitimacy of logic, is the attempt to abrogate Quo Primum doomed ultimately?
This is why Quo Primum was a papal bull with a dogmatic Council of Trent, [you are confused. Quo primum was not “with” the Council of Trent. It was Pope Pius’s own document.] and Vatican II was a mere pastoral council with no dogma. I can choose to ignore 100% of Vatican II and remain a Catholic in good standing. That cannot be said with the Council of Trent.
But back to the issue — if Paul VI indeed abrogated Quo Primum in 1969, then why did Benedict XVI say the missal codified in 1570 and most recently updated in 1962 was never abrogated? [There is a difference between abrogating a document and suppressing or abrogating the pre-Conciliar Missal. If you don’t, try to see the difference.]
Jordanes – argghhh…, you have added no clarity. I don’t even understand your objection. I was objecting to the genetic fallacy of his argument. I think I did that quite precisely and I used HIS language. I am done with this topic.
Fine. Then when was this (Quo Primum) papal bull abrogated? I did not see it abrogated in any 1969 document by Paul VI:
“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. 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 – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever. “
quiet beginning said: Given the fact that in matters of faith and morals the Magisterium of the Church cannot teach something and then subsequently contradict itself, will it not take some adroit hermeneutical gymnastics to “square” the teachings of Quo Primum with what has transpired since VII?
Quo Primum was not primarily a teaching document, but a legislative one.
Gregor said: I don’t even understand your objection.
Sorry. But perhaps that is related to your not understanding or accurately representing CDN_Canonist’s arguments.
I was objecting to the genetic fallacy of his argument. I think I did that quite precisely and I used HIS language.
You used some of his language, but you reproduced none of his argument. Rephrasing his earlier comment, he argued, “Given that Paul VI issued a constitution that abrogate Quo primum in 1969, if you claim that Quo primum was never abrogated, then you are denying that the Pope, by virtue of his office, has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always exercise this power freely (c. 331).”
He restated that argument by saying, “If Quo primum cannot be abrogated, as some claim, then it follows that all subsequent popes after Pius V do not possess the power granted to them, in virtue of their office, in c. 331.”
That bears no resemblance to your version of his argument.
Ken et al.
Quo primum was abrogated by Paul VI’s apostolic constitution Missale Romanum, 3 April 1969.
An apostolic constitution is the most solemn type of papal legislation. It concludes as follows:
“We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.”
Canon 20 states: “A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, of if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it intergrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law.” This was expressly accomplished by Paul VI.
Ken,
Paul VI’s apostolic constitution Missale Romanum says:
“In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. . . . We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent. We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation.”
It’s difficult to see how Quo primum isn’t one of those “apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors” that Paul VI referred to, especially since Paul VI explicitly mentions and discusses QP in his constitution.
So, Quo Primum — which codified the missal — was abrogated, but the missal itself was not (according to Benedict XVI)? How is that possible?
What I\’m seeing above is:
1) Pius V codified the missal via the papal bull Quo Primum in 1570
2) Paul VI introduced a new missal in 1969, thus “abrogating” Quo Primum
3) Benedict XVI said the 1570 (as revised in 1962) was never abrogated.
This defies logic. I don’t see how the missal gets or doesn\’t get abrogated but the documents establishing the missal get separate treatment.
The heart of this matter is how Vatican II and many things that followed it failed to take into consideration things that preceded. It’s one thing to clearly erase and rewrite, but it’s another to have several things in play at the same time.
“Quo primum was abrogated by Paul VI’s apostolic constitution Missale Romanum, 3 April 1969.
An apostolic constitution is the most solemn type of papal legislation. It concludes as follows:
“We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.”
Canon 20 states: “A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, of if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it intergrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law.” This was expressly accomplished by Paul VI.”
Once again, Vere is dead wrong….
Quo Primum & Paul VI’s document address different subject matter: the former is a legislative document relating to the Roman Rite; the latter addresses the creation of an entirely New Rite.
Our current Holy Father clearly understood this when he stated in SP that the ancient Roman Rite had never been abrogated. Thus, Peter, your position “has no legs” as real lawyers say.
Baronius is apparently omniscient. He claims to know the mind of the supreme legislator and my identity. He is mistaken.
If Quo primum was not abrogated by Paul VI, why is Summorum Pontificum necessary? It would not have been necessary to promulgate SP if use of the Missal of 1962 was not restricted. After Paul VI’s Missale Romanum in 1969, the earlier Missal was only permitted (i.e. used licitly) by means of an indult, that is, a privledge contrary to universal law. SP has now changed the law, that is, he derogated from Paul VI’s ap. const. Missale Romanum. Indults are no longer necessary.
Ken asked: So, Quo Primum—which codified the missal—was abrogated, but the missal itself was not (according to Benedict XVI)? How is that possible?
It’s possible because Paul VI failed to include language that suppressed the previous edition of the Roman Missal. All he did was enact the reformed Roman Rite, while not abrogating the previous instantiation of the Roman Rite the way St. Pius V abrogated other liturgical rites in Quo primum. He probably had intended to abrogate the older Missal, but for whatever reason he never actually did.
I don’t see how the missal gets or doesn’t get abrogated but the documents establishing the missal get separate treatment.
What’s so difficult to understand? A missal, and ordinances that lawfully establish a missal, aren’t one and the same thing, are they?
Baronius said: Once again, Vere is dead wrong….
Is that who CDN_Canonist is? I’m not sure why someone as well known as Pete Vere would post under an internet monicker.
Quo Primum & Paul VI’s document address different subject matter: the former is a legislative document relating to the Roman Rite; the latter addresses the creation of an entirely New Rite.
That is not, however, the interpretation that Pope Benedict XVI adopted in Summorum Pontificum, which treats the reformed Roman Rite as the ordinary use or form of the Roman Rite, not an entirely new Rite.
Our current Holy Father clearly understood this when he stated in SP that the ancient Roman Rite had never been abrogated.
If that’s how the Holy Father understands it, then why did he state in SP that the reformed Roman Rite is the ordinary use of the Roman Rite, rather than an entirely new Rite?
CDN_Canonist said: If Quo primum was not abrogated by Paul VI, why is Summorum Pontificum necessary? It would not have been necessary to promulgate SP if use of the Missal of 1962 was not restricted.
It was obviously restricted, but that was due to the introduction of the new Missal and the belief the old Missal had been abrogated, not because the old Missal had really been abrogated.
After Paul VI’s Missale Romanum in 1969, the earlier Missal was only permitted (i.e. used licitly) by means of an indult, that is, a privledge contrary to universal law.
But we now know, as established by SP, that no indults should ever have been required. Practically speaking, since it was wrongly believed the old Missal had been lawfully suppressed, indults were needed, but that was an injustice. SP was necessary to set things right.
SP has now changed the law, that is, he derogated from Paul VI’s ap. const. Missale Romanum. Indults are no longer necessary.
The gist of SP is that they were never necessary.
As I recall, Summorium Pontificum expressly states that the older form of the Mass was never abrogated and its use could not have been licitly restricted. It dis not state that its use was once restricted, but is now freed. In that sense, it seems that SP did not change the law, but instead corrected an injustice whereby an existing law was mis-applied.
Michael J.
SP does not state that.
The pope has supreme, full, immediate ordinary power in the Church and can always exercise it freely, but he can’t re-write history.
After the promulgation of the new editio typica in 1969/1970, use of the earlier Missal was restricted. It could only be used in exceptional circumstances (i.e., elderly and infirm priests) and by means of an indult. This is a matter of fact. SP has eliminated those restrictions and replaced them with a set of new provisions for use of the “extraordinary form” of the “one Roman rite.”
There can be no Magisterial protection by the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity in cases that contradict previous Magisterial statements.
quiet beginning,
The promulgation of law is a function of the munus regendi, not munus docendi. It doesn’t require “magisterial protection” (whatever that might be). The pope, as supreme legislator, can and does promulgate law for the universal Church. What are you cryptically trying to say?
Jordanes,
Papal legislation doesn’t have a “gist”. It contains laws. You make many statements in your post above that are not in SP. SP states that the earlier Missal was not abrogated. He doesn’t say that the previous law (Quattuor abhinc annos, Ecclesia Dei) was unjust or that indults were not required (ooops, we made a mistake!). SP changes the law. It abrogates the earlier provisions of Quattuor abhinc annos and Eccleisa Dei explicitly (see art. 1)
Michael J said: As I recall, Summorium Pontificum expressly states that the older form of the Mass was never abrogated and its use could not have been licitly restricted. It dis not state that its use was once restricted, but is now freed.
The relevant passage of SP says:
“It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.”
The Holy Father says it was never abrogated, but he does not say that its use could not have been licitly restricted — though that would seem to be implied. There is an important issue of justice and coherence of the Church’s laws that had to be cleared up, though, and that’s what SP does in my completely unqualified opinion (meaning I have no qualifications here — I’m armchair canon-lawyering).
Once you start with the rather suspect premise that a pope can do anything he pleases with the liturgy, it’s not surprising you have to twist yourself in knots to explain these sorts of things.
CDN_Canonist:
Okay, let’s try it a different way. Pope St. Pius V decreed in Quo Primum that the Tridentine Mass was to be the accepted liturgical form “in perpetuity.” Perpetuity means “forever.” Otherwise, Pius V would have been saying something like “This Mass is to last forever, but I realize that a later Pontiff may, if he so desires, substitute something else for it.” I believe that Pius V saw the threat to the Church that existed in the 16th century and he therefore took action to protect the Church. We don’t need to indulge in arcana, do we? It’s pretty straightforward, as I see it. The infallible Magisterium of the Church is exercised by the Holy Father when he issued Quo Primum. (Did I say that cryptically?)
quiet beginnings,
Quo primum is not an infallible teaching. It is a piece of legislation. You are confusing the munus docendi (teaching office) with the munus regendi (governing office). Furthermore, no doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated (c. 749, 3). Where does Pius V, or anyone else for that matter, make this claim?
CDN_Canonist said: Papal legislation doesn’t have a “gist”. It contains laws. You make many statements in your post above that are not in SP.
Fine, but neither does SP say that SP is necessary because Paul VI abrogated Quo primum. But it’s quite reasonable to conclude that it was improper to restrict the use of the traditional missal of the Roman Church without having properly abrogated it. That conclusion is bolstered by the Pope’s accompanying letter to the bishops, which gives us a sure hermeneutic for the interpretation of SP:
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. . . .
“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. . . .”
Obviously the Holy Father thinks “mistakes were made” in how the new Missal was introduced and the old Missal was (erroneously) thought to be suppressed.
Quiet beginnings, regarding the term “in perpetuity,” this is what Moses wrote in Exodus 12 about the commandments God gave Israel regarding the observance of the Passover festival:
14 And this day shall be for a memorial to you: and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord in your generations with an everlasting observance.
17 And you shall observe the feast of the unleavened bread: for in this same day I will bring forth your army out of the land of Egypt, and you shall keep this day in your generations by a perpetual observance.
24 Thou shalt keep this thing as a law for thee and thy children for ever.
And yet Jesus taught the Church that the Old Covenant Passover is no longer to be observed by Israel. Did God not know that someday the Messiah would come and give God’s People a new law? Or is it that “in perpetuity” might not necessarily mean what you think it means?
Lex orandi, lex credendi—or, put another way, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” I don’t see how anyone of good will can consider the pre-Vatican II historical record of Catholic spirituality vis-a-vis that of post-VII and not see that the latter suffers immensely as a result. The Internet abounds in documents, both official ones of the Church and writings of lay and religious, that should lead one to unavoidable conclusion as to what Catholicism was like prior to VII. To take but one example, read the pre-VII encyclicals. You won’t find any ambiguity in ANY of them, and they are entirely lacking in any equivocation. They were obviously written with the common Catholic layman in mind. Then read the ones from more recent years…
Quiet beginnings,
You think Humanae vitae or Evangelium vitae, to name just two encyclicals, are ambiguous? Come on!
Nick,
Padre Pio did receive an indult. There were \”transitional\” reforms of the Roman Rite in 1964 and 1967, each more like the Novus Ordo that came in 1970.
Quiet beginning said: You won’t find any ambiguity in ANY of them, and they are entirely lacking in any equivocation. They were obviously written with the common Catholic layman in mind.
No, they’re generally not as prone to ambiguity or equivocation, but they obviously were not written with the common Catholic layman in mind — they were written in Latin, a language most common Catholic laymen could not read, and even when they were translated into languages that lay Catholics could read, very few laymen read them. They were written for bishops and trained theologians, and as a rule they were addressed to bishops, not the laity.
CDN:
Without getting into specific ambiguities found in VII and post-VII documents, all I’m saying is that the incidence of those ambiguities is plethoric. To me, the issue comes down to this: one either finds this to be the case or one does not. The same can be said of the two religions—traditional or conciliar. Everyone has a free will by means of which they choose that which they want. That said, those of us who would exercise our free will to choose the Tridentine Mass as our form of worship were denied (de facto, at the very least) the RIGHT to do so by those who took control of the official apparatus of the Church.
Jordanes:
Yes, those encyclicals were written in Latin, but it does not follow that they “obviously were not written with the common Catholic layman in mind.” That would be to say that their author had no cognizance (or concern, for that matter) of their being translated into the vernacular so that the layman could benefit from them. And what do you offer to support your assertion that “very few laymen read them?” Even if it was the case in times past that very few laymen could read, does that mean that they never got the message contained in those encyclicals? That would mean that the various bishops entrusted with the care of those laymen failed to teach them what they needed to know to be faithful Catholics, a charge that does not square with the historical record.
Quiet beginning said: Yes, those encyclicals were written in Latin, but it does not follow that they “obviously were not written with the common Catholic layman in mind.”
Of course — but then that wasn’t my argument.
That would be to say that their author had no cognizance (or concern, for that matter) of their being translated into the vernacular so that the layman could benefit from them.
The expectation back then was that the bishops would pass it along to the laity through homilies, pastoral letter, and catechisms. The laity were not expected to read papal encyclicals, and so most of them didn’t.
And what do you offer to support your assertion that “very few laymen read them?”
From reading numerous archived issues of U.S. Catholic newspapers from the 1800s and early 1900s — I’ve found in them a recurring concern at the inadequate catechesis being provided for most Catholics. To me it seems that an uncatechised or poorly catechised Catholic would be unlikely to visit a library that had vernacular translations of papal encyclicals in order to read them for himself.
Even if it was the case in times past that very few laymen could read, does that mean that they never got the message contained in those encyclicals?
Many of the laity did get that message, delivered to them in various ways — but that still wouldn’t mean the encyclicals were written with them in mind.
That would mean that the various bishops entrusted with the care of those laymen failed to teach them what they needed to know to be faithful Catholics, a charge that does not square with the historical record.
It depends on the time and the place. For example, since the 1500s the Holy See had moved time and time again to squash the slave trade in Catholic countries, but the Catholic rulers would ban the papal bull or encyclical and decree that it did not have legal force in their domains, and in the U.S. in the early 1800s we had bishops doing their own version of a 1968 rebellion against Humanae Vitae, audaciously claiming there were loopholes in the papal doctrine that made it okay for Catholics to own and sell slaves. Later on that century the U.S. bishops prepared the Baltimore Catechism to address the need to better educate Catholics in their faith, so generally they were doing a good job of teaching faithful Catholics what they needed to know, but even so the laity by and large weren’t reading encyclicals, as they weren’t expected or even necessarily encouraged to read them.
And now I suppose we should make haste to fill this rabbit hole we’ve dug . . .
quiet beginnings,
You state: “The same can be said of the two religions—-traditional or conciliar.” And again, “…those of us who would exercise our free will to choose the Tridentine Mass as our form of worship were denied (de facto, at the very least) the RIGHT to do so by those who took control of the official apparatus of the Church.”
These ridiculous claims by Lefebvre and his followers don’t even warrant a response.
Who are those who “took control of the official apparatus of the Church”? It wouldn’t be the legitimately elected Pontiff and those he duly appointed to various ecclesiastical offices, would it? Or, more ominously, was it those Free Masons again?
Fr. Z. Fantastic job. God Bless you and thank you for all of your obviously careful work that went into this podcast. It is magnificent.
I agree with Amicus1962 that Msgr. Gamber has presented the most coherent opinion as to the history and law surrounding the Roman Rite. Here is my take on the matter in a (big) nutshell:
– The Traditional Rite, as many Popes and Councils have declared, is the Rite of the Church of Rome organically descending from the Apostles, and consequently, from Our Lord. The Missale Romanum of 1570 (or 1474) contained organic changes implemented by Saints of the Church.
– The New Rite of the Mass is a separate rite “fabricated” by committee (and by a priest who was subsequently “exiled” to Iran by his patron).
– Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 1969 may or may not have suppressed Quo Primum, but nevertheless could never have abrogated the Traditional Rite of the Church, which is part of the Apostolic Deposit of the Faith. Summorum Pontificum’s accompanying letter explains that the Traditional Rite was “never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”
– Though the Traditional Rite of Our Lord was never abrogated and always permitted, it was “constructively” abrogated via unjust punishments and the appointment of liberal bishops and clergy in the hierarchy.
– The law sometimes presents a legal fiction in a bid to accomplish a goal. Summorum Pontificum, Article I, presents the Traditional Rite as the “extraordinary form” and the New Rite as the “ordinary form” of the same Roman Rite. Benedict XVI’s goal is the unification of these two rites. Article I presents a legal fiction, and does not reflect reality.
– Benedict XVI’s goal is the actual implementation of Vatican II, which never happened in 1969. That is, a reformed liturgy that is organic to the Roman Rite.
fxavier said: Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 1969 may or may not have suppressed Quo Primum, but nevertheless could never have abrogated the Traditional Rite of the Church, which is part of the Apostolic Deposit of the Faith.
I just don’t see how the traditional Roman Rite could be a part of the apostolic deposit of faith. The Last Supper and the Eucharistic liturgies of the apostles certainly weren’t in Latin nor is it likely that they were all that close to the Roman Church’s liturgy at or just prior to the reign of St. Gregory the Great.
That said, whether or not the Bishop of Rome has the authority to abrogate his church’s traditional rite, Paul VI just didn’t do that in Missale Romanum, whatever he may have intended to do — and thus his apostolic constitution could never have abrogated the traditional Roman Rite.
The law sometimes presents a legal fiction in a bid to accomplish a goal. Summorum Pontificum, Article I, presents the Traditional Rite as the “extraordinary form” and the New Rite as the “ordinary form” of the same Roman Rite. Benedict XVI’s goal is the unification of these two rites. Article I presents a legal fiction, and does not reflect reality.
I don’t like the “legal fiction” argument that the reformed Roman Rite is not really, despite all appearances to the contrary, the liturgical rite of the Roman Church, but is a new and separate rite that the Church of Rome mistakenly claims is its own. The differences between the two forms are vast and the extent of the liturgical reform was unprecedented and inorganic in the manner in which it was executed — but still the reformed rite carries the DNA of the Roman Rite and no other ancient rite, was authorised and adopted by the Bishop of Rome, and is now the usual liturgical form throughout the churches of the Latin Rite. Thus, a proponent of the reformed Roman Rite might wield the “legal fiction” argument against the traditional Mass, arguing that the two uses of the Roman Rite are in fact separate rites — and if that is true, then the priests of the Roman Rite would need a special indult to celebrate Mass according to the traditional rite, which juridically would not be the liturgy proper to them any more. All in all, I think the Pope’s declaration is the correct one: the traditional rite and the reformed rite are, as history and law tell us, the Roman Rite.
Here’s my “hermeneutic of continuity” approach to this issue:
Quo Primum does not specifically mandate the Tridentine Mass; it says that the Mass *as issued by Rome* must be the Mass throughout the Latin Church, *unless* a Rite is older than 200 years.
Well, the Novus Ordo/Ordinary Form *is* the “Mass as issued by Rome,” so Quo Primum applies to the Novus Ordo. It also applies to the Tridentine Liturgy, since it is older than 200 years and, according to _Quo Primum_, cannot be abrogated.
*However,* my take on “whether _Quo Primum_ applies to day” is that it calls into serious question the modern penchant for local adaptations in the liturgy.
CDN_Canonist said:
“These ridiculous claims by Lefebvre and his followers don’t even warrant a response.
Who are those who “took control of the official apparatus of the Church”? It wouldn’t be the legitimately elected Pontiff and those he duly appointed to various ecclesiastical offices, would it? Or, more ominously, was it those Free Masons again?”
I mentioned nothing about the late Archbishop Lefebvre or his “followers.” As far as your aversion to a response, that’s your affair. My concern is—and has been for the last 50 years—that I be able to regularly attend the Latin Mass. I do not see in the Novus Ordo service a reverent, God-centered worship. It just does not strike me as Catholic. I’m not condemning anyone who doesn’t agree with me—they can worship (or not) in any way they desire. And yet I find that we who want the Latin Mass are treated with contempt. Is this Catholic charitableness? What gives here, CDN? Why dost thou protest so loudly? BTW, your allusion to “Free Masons [sic]” is telling.
You did not comment on my observation that the Latin Mass was de facto taken away from those Catholics who loved it. Is that because you think that I’m mistaken about its unavailability for decades? Against a fact there is no argument, and it’s a fact that the Latin Mass was indeed taken away from us (de facto, for sure). To dispute this is absurd.
Jordanes said:
“The expectation back then was that the bishops would pass it along to the laity through homilies, pastoral letter, and catechisms. The laity were not expected to read papal encyclicals, and so most of them didn’t.”
Exactly, Jordanes. The question here for me was whether the old encyclicals (once effectively translated and transmitted to the laity) were more succinct than the documents of VII and those that followed VII. I find the pre-VII’s to be unambiguous, while I can’t say the same for the post-VII’s. That’s just my take on it. No one has to agree with me.
CDN_Canonist writes:
After Paul VI’s Missale Romanum in 1969, the earlier Missal was only permitted (i.e. used licitly) by means of an indult, that is, a privledge contrary to universal law.
It would seem that the Holy Father is of a different mind given what he wrote in the explanatory letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum:
Of course the explanatory letter is not law itself, but I think the interpretation of the law by the Supreme Legislator holds a bit more weight than that of an individual canonist, however learned he might be in his field.
By the way, I strongly doubt that CDN_Canonist is Peter Vere, who is not shy about attaching his name to his postings on the Internet.
Father Z,
You do a really nice job with these podcasts. Thank you for doing them.
Jordanes: “The Last Supper and the Eucharistic liturgies of the apostles certainly weren’t in Latin nor is it likely that they were all that close to the Roman Church’s liturgy at or just prior to the reign of St. Gregory the Great.”
Latin is not the issue. The words of the Liturgy are.
Read what the Popes and Councils have said about the Liturgy. They have all attested to the ancient and organic lineage of the Traditional Rite.
Let’s take the Eucharistic Prayer of the Traditional Rite as an example.
Pope St. Innocent I attributes the Roman Canon to Peter, and so have many subsequent Popes and Councils. (Incidentally, the Roman Canon is related to the Eucharistic Prayers of the East).
Perhaps the New Rite is 1/4 Traditional and Roman in that it contains the Roman Canon, but then it is 3/4 un-Traditional and un-Roman in that it has 3 new Eucharistic Prayers that were completely made up.
It is the organic nature of the development of the Liturgy that we look to, not to some heretical antiquarianism. After all, the Church is very much alive, and not lifeless.
With that in mind, the changes that were incorporated in the Rite were small and were in some cases reactions to other organically derived Rites.
Vatican II asked for the organic development of the liturgy.
——
Jordanes: “I don’t like the “legal fiction” argument…”
You may not like the “legal fiction” argument, but it is more likely fact than fiction. Cardinal Ratzinger was consistent in acknowledging that the Traditional and New Rites were different Rites. He defended the organic lineage of the Traditional Rite and the fact that the New Rite was “fabricated”.
“… the reformed rite carries the DNA of the Roman Rite and no other ancient rite…”
Let’s be precise and avoid ambiguous arguments. The correct term of art used by the Church is “organic development” and not “contains DNA”. As an example, the Lutheran liturgy “contains DNA” of the Roman Liturgy, but like its credo, is not “organically developed” from what Rome has always had. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
As Gamber would argue, a house, like a rite, is not “organically developed” where it is taken apart, and a new house was built using parts from the old and also new parts.
In the most important part of the Liturgy, the New Rite is organic to the Traditional Rite where Eucharistic Prayer I: Roman Canon is used. All 3 other EPs are alien to Roman usage and completely new.
The architects of the New Rite claim to incorporate Eastern influences, but even this is tenuous in most instances.
“Thus, a proponent of the reformed Roman Rite might wield the “legal fiction” argument against the traditional Mass…”
They may wield the argument, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the Traditional Rite of the Roman Church is still the Rite proper to it that has come down from the Apostles. The Rite which comes from the Apostles never needs special permission to celebrate.
Church Liberals have always unabashedly admitted the two rites are different. So why would that make a difference now?
“All in all, I think the Pope’s declaration is the correct one: the traditional rite and the reformed rite are, as history and law tell us, the Roman Rite.”
Read the Pope’s writings. Read Spirit of the Liturgy, and then read his Preface to Msgr. Gamber’s book (printed on the back). Also, read Milestones.
Pope Benedict does not strike me as a man who would change his beliefs upon becoming Pope. He strikes me as an intelligent man who has found a clever solution to the untenable situation of two different rites in one Church.
Legally both the traditional rite and the modern rite are one Rite. If this were not the case then priests ordained according to the modern ritual would not have the right to offer the older Mass. So Deo gratias for that!
However, according to Msgr. Gamber’s definition of what a “rite” actually is – distinct Calendar, forms of Sacraments, Divine Office, etc., then yes, the traditional rite and the modern rite are different rites. It isn’t true that the modern rite is a descendant of only the traditional Roman Rite. I believe Eucharistic Prayer IV is Syriac in origin, for example, and there is no evidence that Eucharistic Prayer II was ever used in Rome.
St. Pius V must have known something very important about his office and the need to guard the faith. Why would he anathematize someone who tried to change what is laid down in quo primum?
Can someone stand up and tell me why he thinks the novus ordo liturgy is superior to the Gregorian Rite? I thought a reform should make something better, or am I just stupid? Can anyone explain why he thinks Paul VI did not abuse his authority in promulgating the so called reforms of Vatican II? Although a successor to Pius V could overturn quo primum, does this mean that doing so would be righteous? Pius V anathematizes he who alters what is contained in quo primum. Could this be a reminder to his successors that to overturn quo primum would be detrimental to the Church and perhaps displeasing to God? Can’t a Pope choose not to follow good advice and sin in a matter pertaining to discipline and the external form of worship?
Even though what Pius V says is not infallible, it is rooted in common sense. If you alter the external form of the Church’s worship, and this change then conveys to the mind an impression that is contrary to Truth, then we have a disaster! I cannot see any heresy in the new missal, but it conveys to the majority of people an incorrect understanding of the faith. A teacher can teach the faith and not teach heresy, but if he teaches it in a way that is watered down or misleading, then he could cause his students to loose their faith without even knowing it. In the medieval period, it was believed that missals could talk. Those people understood liturgy, whereas the “great modern man” does not.
dcs wrote: “By the way, I strongly doubt that CDN_Canonist is Peter Vere, who is not shy about attaching his name to his postings on the Internet.”
That and my DH is currently away with the military, and won’t have telephone or internet access until the third weekend in May.
quiet beginning,
My apologies for being flippant. Your reference to “two religions – traditional and conciliar” is clearly a position of Lefebvre and deserves to be criticized without condition. Tradition did not begin nor end with Vatican II.
fxavier said: Read what the Popes and Councils have said about the Liturgy. They have all attested to the ancient and organic lineage of the Traditional Rite.
I have read them, and I mentioned that the traditional Roman Rite is ancient and developed organically. Those facts do not establish that the traditional rite is a part of the deposit of faith, however, something I’m not aware the Magisterium has ever affirmed.
Pope St. Innocent I attributes the Roman Canon to Peter, and so have many subsequent Popes and Councils. (Incidentally, the Roman Canon is related to the Eucharistic Prayers of the East).
The old Catholic Encyclopedia does not mention anything about Pope Innocent attributing the Roman Canon to St. Peter. All it says of Innocent’s comments on the Canon are:
The only thing the old Catholic Encyclopedia says on a tradition about who composed the Canon is this:
St. Gregory the Great seems unaware of a tradition ascribing the Canon directly to St. Peter. As for Innocent, perhaps there has been some text that has come to light in the century since the old Catholic Encyclopedia was written?
Perhaps the New Rite is 1/4 Traditional and Roman in that it contains the Roman Canon, but then it is 3/4 un-Traditional and un-Roman in that it has 3 new Eucharistic Prayers that were completely made up.
By now it’s a lot worse than that, as I believe there are many more possible choices among Eucharistic Prayers than Paul VI originally approved.
It is the organic nature of the development of the Liturgy that we look to, not to some heretical antiquarianism.
Or even some orthodox antiquarianism for that matter.
Cardinal Ratzinger was consistent in acknowledging that the Traditional and New Rites were different Rites. He defended the organic lineage of the Traditional Rite and the fact that the New Rite was “fabricated”.
I don’t believe he has ever said that the traditional rite and the reformed rite were two different Rites in the juridical sense, and I’m pretty sure he has even said that the reformed rite is organically derived from the traditional rite, something that I find a bit questionable.
Let’s be precise and avoid ambiguous arguments. The correct term of art used by the Church is “organic development” and not “contains DNA”.
My DNA metaphor is not less ambiguous than “organic development.”
As an example, the Lutheran liturgy “contains DNA” of the Roman Liturgy, but like its credo, is not “organically developed” from what Rome has always had. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
The Lutheran liturgy is a bastard child of the Roman Rite, illicitly concocted and altered under heretical designs. The reformed Roman rite, botch-up job that it clearly is, was licitly composed and lawfully approved and promulgated by the Bishop of Rome.
They may wield the argument, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the Traditional Rite of the Roman Church is still the Rite proper to it that has come down from the Apostles. The Rite which comes from the Apostles never needs special permission to celebrate.
The reformed rite, however, is also proper to the Roman Church, and preserves a core that came down from the apostles.
Read the Pope’s writings. Read Spirit of the Liturgy, and then read his Preface to Msgr. Gamber’s book (printed on the back). Also, read Milestones.
Already have, thanks.
Pope Benedict does not strike me as a man who would change his beliefs upon becoming Pope. He strikes me as an intelligent man who has found a clever solution to the untenable situation of two different rites in one Church.
I don’t think he changed his beliefs upon becoming pope either, and as I said, I’m not aware that he has ever said the two Roman rites are two separate Rites. Also, while it’s not a good analogy, in Eastern Catholic Churches there is more than one rite in one Church, so SP’s settlement of this issue is not wholly unprecedented.
quiet beginning,
I distinctly remember a number people being in the pew reciting the rosary from the beginning of mass until the end. You might have heard of the is practice. Have you ever wondered where this practice originated? Please imagine sitting in the pew in a large cathedral wedged perhaps besides some unruly children, hearing nothing more than an occasional orate fratres and seeing a priest in the distance and understanding not much else. I challenge you and anyone else for that matter, to tell me how much good to your spiritual life that would do. Yes, one is fulfilling ones Sunday obligation, but not much else. I think Paul VI and clergy at the time understood something out to be done here, unfortunately the baby was dumped with water as well.
Joseph: I challenge you and anyone else for that matter, to tell me how much good to your spiritual life that would do.
No doubt, right now there is somewhere a little old lady sitting in the pew at the newer form of Mass and praying her rosary from beginning to end; perhaps due to the rigors of age she is deaf, and cannot hear even that occasional Orate fratres. If I recall correctly — perhaps you would like to look it up his exact words — in one of his books Cardinal Ratzinger warned us against looking down on her and assuming our own spiritual superiority.
Further to that Joseph: a few months ago I brought my grandfather to a Low Mass not far from here. He is in his late 80’s and hadn’t been to a Tridentine Mass since the liturgical reforms. About half-way through the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, he took out a newspaper from his coat pocket (which he always carries) and proceded to read it the whole way through Mass. He got quite a few stares from some younger congregants and needless to say it was a bit embarrassing. I questioned him about this after Mass had finished, wondering whether or not he just didn’t like the old liturgy. He told me that in his day it was very common for men to read the newspaper (and even smoke!!) during Mass and for women to pray the rosary.
Dr. Lee Fratantuono,
A more hardy thank you for your contribution.
I appreciate you expanding on that topic; especially on a website that is slavishly attentive to such nuances it was not only of interest but renders a nice academic follow up in fact. Thank you for the educational tool; such nomenclature is helpful and of a great aid since accurate references are the mainstay of many debates and discussions today. Exactly because the common index precludes additional resources, on that strength alone,your insight was most attractive.
Henry Edwards
to mention reciting rosaries was certainly not a put down, but a mere illustration of possibility of trying to stay focused at the sacred action at hand. I was an altar server throughout my youth until young adulthood, so I never experienced the view from the pew with the TM mass. It was only recently after I took friends to a TM low mass in a larger church in a big city I have come to realize some of the inherent problems with it. All is fine in a small church and you are possibly equipped with a missal and translation and you can hear the readings and the sermon. But without unless you are a saint with an iron will, you will have little contributed.
CDN_Canonist:
I saw no flippancy in anything you said. I’m certain that you, like everyone else posting to this blog, are searching after Truth. It’s just that some of us are reaching for it from different perspectives. I enjoy your posts.
Joseph,
I must bring up a point regarding your objection to praying the Rosary during Mass. If someone finds that praying the Rosary helps him participate interiorly then I do not think that he should be criticized, or if someone prefers not to utter vocally any prayers or simply wants to kneel through the whole Mass I do not see what is wrong with that.
I am very critical of the approach the Church has taken within the last hundred years starting with St. Pius X at trying to induce outward participation among the people. The best example of participation at Mass is what our Blessed Mother, St. John, and St. Mary Magdalen gave us at the foot of the cross. What is participation? Are we participating just because we respond “and with your spirit”? Keep in mind that for almost the entire history of the Catholic liturgy as well as the Jewish liturgy (which we are a continuation of) the people had no external part in the liturgy. Even though this was the case, the liturgy was understood better in those days (pre Reformation era) than any other time period in the Church’s history. Today, we have a crisis in liturgy because it has become artificical.
Whenever I see the argument that you propose, I always ask myself what a deaf person is supposed to do to comply with your thinking or what we should do if we had no microphones. Are the people in the east not participating when they cannot even see the priest behind the wall?
Should not instruction regarding what the Mass is be preffered over the attempt to induce people into artificial participation?
“DNA” is not a term of art. “Organic development”, on the other hand, is a term of art. It has been written about in many academic and intellectual works. A term of art is a label that rings a bell in the mind of a lawyer, theologian, philosopher, etc. about the definition, scope, arguments, etc. surrounding a word.
Jordanes said: “Also, while it’s not a good analogy, in Eastern Catholic Churches there is more than one rite in one Church, so SP’s settlement of this issue is not wholly unprecedented.”
The Liturgy of St. Basil and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom are related liturgies. The Traditional Roman Rite and the New Roman Rite are barely related. In fact, the Traditional Rite is more closely related to the Eastern Rites than to the New Rite. (Read quotes below.)
Jordanes said: “Or even some orthodox antiquarianism for that matter.”
Huh? Antiquarianism is a heresy. What is orthodox antiquarianism? It is like saying “orthodox Nestorianism” or “orthodox Monophysitism”.
I was hoping that I would not have to take out my books, but here are the salient points I was referencing:
I am too lazy at this moment to pull out other quotes from Popes and Councils.
So, Cardinal Ratzinger said that there was a break in organic development. Would you expect anything else where we have committees doing things?
Cardinal Ratzinger recognized that committees had drafted the New Order.
If we had “organic development”, would a reform of the reform of the New Rite be required?
So what can we conclude from Ratzinger’s writings?
* The Traditional Roman Mass is the proper liturgical rite of the Roman Church, not because of legislation (and legislation would never abrogate it), but because it is part of the Apostolic Deposit of the Faith given to the Church.
* Organic development stopped after 1965.
* Benedict is attempting to bridge the gap between 1962 and 1970.
* The facts support the fact that Summorum Pontificum, Article I, is a “legal fiction”, i.e., not that the new and old rites are two usages of the same rite in fact, but only in law.
* One could say there was never such a thing as “the Missal of Pope St. Pius V”, as it was really the Missal of the Church of Rome. In contrast, one could say that there is a “Missal of Paul VI”, because it is original to him.
fxavier said: “DNA” is not a term of art. “Organic development”, on the other hand, is a term of art.
DNA, however, is a term referring to God’s living creatures. But I understand that you don’t like my analogy and have explained your reasons. Thanks.
The Traditional Roman Rite and the New Roman Rite are barely related.
“Barely related” strikes me as a bit of a hyperbole. They have more in common with each other than with any other Catholic liturgical rite, though nowhere near enough in common with each other as they should have.
Antiquarianism is a heresy.
No, it’s an erroneous, uninformed, misguided approach toward Catholic liturgy and practice. It is not a heresy and has never been proscribed as such. In his liturgical encyclical Mediator Dei, Pius XII uses the word only once, without calling it a heresy. Instead, he modifies “antiquarianism” with the adjectives “senseless” and “exaggerated” in such a way that implies that not all antiquarianism is senseless or exaggerated.
What is orthodox antiquarianism?
In the context of liturgical reform, it would be reviving a long-abandoned orthodox Catholic practice: nothing contrary to the faith there, but usually not advisable or necessary, and animated by an “older is better” prejudice or preference.
“Who would not know or acknowledge that what has been handed down to the Roman Church by Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and is kept even now, ought to be preserved by all, and nothing that lacks authority or seems to take its example from another [source] ought to be added or introduced?” Letter of Pope Innocent I to the Bishop of Gubbio (demanding a uniform rite), (taken from Gamber’s the Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 34, footnote 26)”
Thanks for that quote. It is clear, then, that Innocent I did not actually ascribe the Roman Canon directly to St. Peter, but only spoke more generally about the Roman Church inheriting her liturgical tradition from Peter. And Pope Vigilius’ comment isn’t any more specific than Innocent’s.
As for the Ratzinger quotes, I’m already familiar with them and, as I’ve indicated above, I agree with them. This last quote, however, lends support to what I said above about the Holy Father not believing that the traditional rite and the reformed rite are so different as to be altogether different and/or separate rites. Instead, despite the criticisms that must be leveled against the way the reformed rite was produced, he has always seen to Pauline rite as the latest stage of the Roman Rite”
“In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. Ratzinger, Feast of Faith, p. 87”
The Traditional Roman Mass is the proper liturgical rite of the Roman Church, not because of legislation (and legislation would never abrogate it), but because it is part of the Apostolic Deposit of the Faith given to the Church.
None of the quotes you supplied establish that the traditional Roman Mass is part of the deposit of faith, or that the Church now believed or has ever believed that it is.
The facts support the fact that Summorum Pontificum, Article I, is a “legal fiction”, i.e., not that the new and old rites are two usages of the same rite in fact, but only in law.
When it comes to the Roman Pontiff’s decrees, they have the power t establish not only what things are in law but in fact.
One could say there was never such a thing as “the Missal of Pope St. Pius V”, as it was really the Missal of the Church of Rome. In contrast, one could say that there is a “Missal of Paul VI”, because it is original to him.
Yes, that’s quite true.
‘Confusion’ and ‘Chaos’, looking back over forty years, these are the fruits, and by thier fruits you will know them.
Jordanes said: “It is clear, then, that Innocent I did not actually ascribe the Roman Canon directly to St. Peter, but only spoke more generally about the Roman Church inheriting her liturgical tradition from Peter. And Pope Vigilius’ comment isn’t any more specific than Innocent’s.”
You hit it right on the spot. The Traditional Roman Rite, like its Eastern counterparts, is part of the Apostolic Deposit. The Roman Canon, likewise, is part of the Apostolic Deposit. Moreover, Ratzinger holds to the belief that liturgy is not merely a matter of disciple, but part of the Apostolic Deposit.
—-
Jordanes: I have only one question: Based on the quotes below, does Ratzinger believe that the New Rite is organic to the Old Rite?
St. Gregory the Great attributes the Roman Canon to a certain “Scholasticus”:
Ref: http://newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm (scroll down a little) – there is a more in-depth discussion of this in Fortescue’s The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy.
I don’t know where the theory that the Roman Canon can be attributed to St. Peter comes from, but it must certainly postdate St. Gregory the Great. Now Fr. Fortescue was not an ultramontanist but if Popes and Councils had attributed the Canon to St. Peter then he certainly would have mentioned it.
The same article in Catholic Encyclopedia also says: “The prayers, or at least some of them, can be traced back to a very early date from occasional references in letters of Fathers.”
The reference to a “Scholasticus” (whether the name of a man or a “learned man”) is really not something we ought to be concerned about. It is ambiguous. He could have meant, from all the different possibilities, either a learned man from the patristic age, or even a more recent figure with that name who reformulated the Canon.
The important point in all this, even if Peter did not give the Canon to the Roman Church, is that the Canon is part of the Apostolic Deposit.
Jordanes: I have only one question: Based on the quotes below, does Ratzinger believe that the New Rite is organic to the Old Rite?
Based on those quotes, it’s not entirely clear, but it seems most like that Cardinal Ratzinger was indicating a belief that the reformed Roman Rite was not developed organically from the traditional Roman Rite. I think it’s pretty difficult for anyone to argue that the postconciliar reform of the Roman Rite was organic development. Still, that doesn’t necessarily mean Papa Ratzinger has ever regarded the reformed rite and the old rite as separate rites.
The important point in all this, even if Peter did not give the Canon to the Roman Church, is that the Canon is part of the Apostolic Deposit.
And again, I’m not aware that the Church has ever held that to be true. The traditional Roman Rite is intimately related to the deposit of faith, but how could it be something normative and eternally valid and binding in matters of faith and morals that comes to us from Jesus and the Apostles? When was the Roman Canon ever believed and practiced always, everywhere, and by all?
fxavier–
The problem with using “quotes” from an intellect of His Holiness’ caliber is that his complete thought is rarely expressed so tersely– or in such convenient excerpts. One of the reasons some are frustrated by Pope Benedict’s seeming slowness to act is that they have been misled by the same misleadingly edited and highlighted snippets of his writings that can easily be found all over the internet. When the context is considered, however, it’s evident that his reasoning is more complex. The preface to Msgr Gamber’s book was published only in French, and the entire piece is a marvel of balance, equally laying the blame for the failure of the reform on those who improvise and depart from the rubrics and those who isolated themselves for the sake of attachment to older forms of the liturgy. The complete chapter from Milestones is even clearer in its denunciation, not of the Novus Ordo, but in the manner in which it was introduced.
His argument in both pieces is that we have been given the erroneous impression that liturgy CAN be manufactured “inorganically,” and as Jordanes rightly notes, even the quotes you give do not make concrete his belief about the organic quality– or lack thereof– of the reformed Roman Rite.
Would it be asking too much of the reigning Vatican establishment to answer the following: Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
Then, assuming (and that’s some assumption!) they answered “yes,” would it not be appropriate to ask them to square what has happened (and continues to happen up to the present) during the last 50 years?
Just asking.
We have come to the crux of the argument. Here are your two statements.
Both #1 and #2 cannot be true at the same time. Two uses belong to the same rite and are uses of the same rite only if they are organic to each other. Where a rite changes significantly, it becomes a different rite.
No liturgical historian, rubricist, or liturgist (even modern day ones) I have heard of disputes this point. Even hermeneutic of rupture liturgists gladly point out that we have escaped the “preconciliar” rite.
And that is why Ratzinger said:
There is such a thing as a Missal of Paul VI, as Paul VI created it (with the help of Bugnini) not as a result of organic growth, but as a fabrication. On the other hand, Pius’ work did not create a new “Missal”. In fact, the Missal of 1570 promulgated by Pius was largely identical to that of 1474. A Gamber said, only a “specialist” would notice.
And that brings us back to this quote and the reason for Summorum Pontificum, (as Card. Canizares said,) “even if there were not a single “traditionalist” whom to satisfy”:
The liturgical books of the Roman Church are open for all to see. If one does not clearly see the organic connection, then there is none. Ratzinger wished to see the New Rite grafted onto the tree which has come down from the Fathers.
Antiquarian: The Holy Father does not move with the same haste that Paul VI did. Paul VI, in his haste to implement such an unprecedented change in liturgy, ended up tearing many people from the Church. That cannot happen again. That is why we cannot outright abolish the New Rite. And that’s why many are frustrated.
Ratzinger’s work, I agree, was balanced. But it was also conciliatory in its language. Consider the time period the works came from, when even mere support for the Traditional Rite was shunned.
For example, there are many telling lines in the chapter from Milestones:
How could Ratzinger say such a thing? After all, the Roman Rite from the earliest times all the way through 1965 had been reissued many times with changes, and older editions have been “prohibited”. The reason is that there is a fundamental break in the organic development that occurred after 1965, so much so that the Missal of Paul VI of 1969 was not just another reissue of the Mass of the Apostles.
Of course, Ratzinger thought certain aspects of the New Rite were good.
However, it is also obvious that Ratzinger did not consider the New Mass organic to the Old Mass. Much of what he says is about “fabrication”, “erudite work”, “forbidding the results of this historical growth”, “drawn up by academics”, etc: language that is the opposite of “organic growth”.
Let me put the onus on you: Where does Ratzinger say “the New Missal is an organic growth out of the Liturgy of the Roman Church”.
—-
DCS:
As I was flipping through Gamber’s book, I found this quote:
Unfortunately, it is not footnoted. I would like to look into this topic. Gamber’s knowledge and resources probably exceeded that of anyone else with regard to liturgical history.