Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Poll

If Pope Pius XII had put St. Joseph in the Canon, what would you have done?

I would accept the change and attend St. Joseph Masses
19 (61.3%)
I would not accept the change and would attend only dissident non-St. Joseph Masses
1 (3.2%)
I would accept the change and attend either St. Joseph Masses or non-St. Joseph Masses
11 (35.5%)

Total Members Voted: 31

Voting closed: February 03, 2024, 11:15:00 AM

Author Topic: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass  (Read 35881 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 10327
  • Reputation: +6242/-1743
  • Gender: Male
Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2024, 05:44:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    that I lean toward John XXIII being a valid pope, hence St. Joseph in the Canon is acceptable.
    Technically, the addition of St Joseph was done by a committee, not directly by the Pope.  Even if the Pope approved of the committee, there is the legal gray area, wherein the addition was not done with the mention of Quo Primum, nor Apostolic Authority.  The original edition of the 62 missal, directly done by John 23, mentions Quo Primum; the committee changes (which started with V2) did not.  There is a difference between papal authority (i.e. papal govt/human approval) and apostolic authority approval (i.e. spiritual/infallible approval).

    The point being -- the original edition 62 missal was a direct revision of Quo Primum, using papal authority.  All additional editions of the 62 missal were done by committee, and indirectly approved by the pope (indirectly, meaning the pope did not sign the docuмents, but delegated authority...which is a common govt approach).

    Now, fast forward to Paul 6's new mass.  He never used direct papal authority to create the new mass, but said the authority came from the V2 council.  This, of course, is circular logic, because a council has no authority, except if given by the pope.

    Conclusion:  There have been legal games being played in new-rome since John 23.  Assuming John 23 was a true pope, the original edition of the 62 missal seems legit.  All other editions, including the various, various 62, 65 missals, etc (and the new mass of 69) were created using non-apostolic authority, but only created from the "wishes" of the council.

    Being that V2 was never approved by Apostolic Authority (one of the reasons it's not dogmatic or infallible), thus the editions created by a "committee" approach are also not approved by Apostolic Authority.  Thus, they are, (to use the title of the famous book), the "work of human hands".


    Offline Texana

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 383
    • Reputation: +174/-47
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #31 on: January 26, 2024, 05:55:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you think that the Latin Rite Canon was dropped from Heaven and handed to St. Peter ... before some of the saints mentioned in the Canon were even born?  Of course Popes can and have changed the Canon.  Trent teaches (as cited) that the Pope has the authority to change the Rites of the Church, and there was no exclusion made for the Canon.  Can you provide docuмentation saying that the Pope cannot change the Canon?  And before you try to cite Quo Primum, except for matters of divine law and dogma, a Pope cannot bind another pope.
    Dear Ladislaus,

    The Canon of the Mass of the Roman Rite is an organically grown rite of worship. It did in fact come from Heaven in the sense that this is how God wanted to be worshipped. It is not an idea or project of any one individual. Of course Popes have arranged the Canon, even "diesque nostras in Tua pace disponas" was added in the sixth century by Pope Gregory I.  And yet, I can provide the docuмentation that a Pope cannot change the Canon of the Mass. "Quo Primum" is important, and its language actually provides the clue; but it is not the key.


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #32 on: January 28, 2024, 06:02:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Council of Trent, Session XXII
    http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm

    One must understand, the Latin word "canon" literally means "measuring line or rod." To add something to a "measuring rod" will change the measuring standard itself. So an addition or a subtraction or any change will automatically "abrogate" the previous standard of the "measuring rod."

    Trent says that cannot be done.


    Quote
    CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

    The anathema is clearly directed at an assertion that the existing canon of the Mass contains errors, and the related claim that on that basis ("therefore") it should be abrogated.

    Ok, you disagree, but I think my reading stronger. At the least (a concession for purposes of argument), my reading is as reasonable as yours. So who decides a disagreement in a disputable reading between two reasonable arguments? You know who.  The Church, through its sovereign the pope, has authority and supreme jurisdiction to make that call "according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places" (Council of Trent, Session XXI, Chapt. 2).

    But when the form of the sacrament has been handed down directly from Our Lord, the Church can't touch it, and when it does so, it acts ultra vires. Otherwise, the Church has the authority and power to dispense the sacraments as it sees fit, and as steward of the sacraments it can alter the liturgical or sacramental rite "for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments," again, "according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places" (Council of Trent, Session XXI, Chapt. 2). It's not my call, your call, but the Church's call.

    And we know what the untouchable form of the sacrament of the Eucharist is, directly from the Gospel and the mouth of Our Lord:


    Quote
    From the Bull "Exsultate Deo" of Eugene IV and the Council of Florence
    Decree for the Armenians,  22 November 1439

    The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament.

    Matthew 24

    27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
    Et accipiens calicem, gratias egit : et dedit illis, dicens : Bibite ex hoc omnes.

    28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
    Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

    So, unlike your at the least (again, I’m making a concession for purposes of argument) "reasonable" opinion on the Trentian canon, my “judgment” that the “for all” of the former vernacular of the Novus Ordo “abrogates” the sacrament is not a disputable issue, or a far from obvious "interpretation" subject to the Holy See's authority to resolve and interpret. Christ's words are clear, at the heart of the Gospel, and subjection is commanded to their obvious meaning - Galatians 1:8-9 etc.

    I hope you see the difference.
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Texana

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 383
    • Reputation: +174/-47
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #33 on: January 28, 2024, 10:05:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • The anathema is clearly directed at an assertion that the existing canon of the Mass contains errors, and the related claim that on that basis ("therefore") it should be abrogated.

    Ok, you disagree, but I think my reading stronger. At the least (a concession for purposes of argument), my reading is as reasonable as yours. So who decides a disagreement in a disputable reading between two reasonable arguments? You know who.  The Church, through its sovereign the pope, has authority and supreme jurisdiction to make that call "according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places" (Council of Trent, Session XXI, Chapt. 2).

    But when the form of the sacrament has been handed down directly from Our Lord, the Church can't touch it, and when it does so, it acts ultra vires. Otherwise, the Church has the authority and power to dispense the sacraments as it sees fit, and as steward of the sacraments it can alter the liturgical or sacramental rite "for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments," again, "according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places" (Council of Trent, Session XXI, Chapt. 2). It's not my call, your call, but the Church's call.

    And we know what the untouchable form of the sacrament of the Eucharist is, directly from the Gospel and the mouth of Our Lord:


    So, unlike your at the least (again, I’m making a concession for purposes of argument) "reasonable" opinion on the Trentian canon, my “judgment” that the “for all” of the former vernacular of the Novus Ordo “abrogates” the sacrament is not a disputable issue, or a far from obvious "interpretation" subject to the Holy See's authority to resolve and interpret. Christ's words are clear, at the heart of the Gospel, and subjection is commanded to their obvious meaning - Galatians 1:8-9 etc.

    I hope you see the difference.
    Dear DecemRationis,

    Angelus is addressing the Canon itself, not the dispensation/administration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

    Chapter 2 of the XXI Session touches " the dispensing" (verb) and confirms that fact by the additional word;" administration" (verb) the action, not the noun. Angelus is quoting Canon 6 of the XXII Session which treats the thing:  the Canon of the Mass (noun).

    Angelus and you will never agree because you two are talking about two different things.

    It is critical to understand that the Sacrament of the Eucharist does not stop being a Sacrament when the last words of Transubstantiation are uttered. The Communion is the dispensing/administration of the Sacrament. The Roman Church decided that only one specie (consecrated bread) shall be dispensed/administered; unlike in the Eastern Tradition, where the Eucharist is dispensed/administered under both species. Your own quote proves it.

    The Canon of the Mass, through (including) Consecration has nothing to do with the dispensation/administration.

    From Webster's dictionary:
    to dispense-verb-dispensare- to grant dispensation, to distribute, to administer
    to administer-verb-administrare- to serve, to manage or supervise the execution, use, a conduct, to mete out , dispense

    Angelus is right.

     Session XXII Chapter 4:" And since it is fitting that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and this sacrifice is of all things the most holy, the Catholic Church, that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, instituted the sacred canon many centuries ago, so free from error [can.6], that it contains nothing in it which does not especially diffuse a certain sanctity and piety and rise up to God the minds of those who offer it. For this consists both of the words of God, and of the traditions of the apostles, and also of pious instructions of the holy Pontiffs."

    "...Offered and received..." The Canon has two parts: consecratory and dispensatory. The first part cannot be altered; the dispensation/administration can. (N.B not because of the can.6)

    That is why it is very important to give the correct definition of things.

    "error- an act or condition of ignorant or imprudent deviation from a code of behavior ... 3. something produced by mistake, 4. the difference between an observed or calculated value and a true value. ... ERROR suggests the existence of a standard or guide and a straying from the right course through failure to make effective use of this; thus, an error in addition involves some failure in following the rules of addition..."  Webster's Dictionary, 1979

    There is no need to involve the Holy Father to resolve the difference of opinion between Angelus and DecemRationis, (which Pope would you ask anyway?)

    We still need the definition of the Canon. What is the Canon of the Mass?

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #34 on: January 29, 2024, 09:09:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dear DecemRationis,

    Angelus is addressing the Canon itself, not the dispensation/administration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

    Chapter 2 of the XXI Session touches " the dispensing" (verb) and confirms that fact by the additional word;" administration" (verb) the action, not the noun. Angelus is quoting Canon 6 of the XXII Session which treats the thing:  the Canon of the Mass (noun).

    Angelus and you will never agree because you two are talking about two different things.

    It is critical to understand that the Sacrament of the Eucharist does not stop being a Sacrament when the last words of Transubstantiation are uttered. The Communion is the dispensing/administration of the Sacrament. The Roman Church decided that only one specie (consecrated bread) shall be dispensed/administered; unlike in the Eastern Tradition, where the Eucharist is dispensed/administered under both species. Your own quote proves it.

    The Canon of the Mass, through (including) Consecration has nothing to do with the dispensation/administration.

    From Webster's dictionary:
    to dispense-verb-dispensare- to grant dispensation, to distribute, to administer
    to administer-verb-administrare- to serve, to manage or supervise the execution, use, a conduct, to mete out , dispense

    Angelus is right.

     Session XXII Chapter 4:" And since it is fitting that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and this sacrifice is of all things the most holy, the Catholic Church, that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, instituted the sacred canon many centuries ago, so free from error [can.6], that it contains nothing in it which does not especially diffuse a certain sanctity and piety and rise up to God the minds of those who offer it. For this consists both of the words of God, and of the traditions of the apostles, and also of pious instructions of the holy Pontiffs."

    "...Offered and received..." The Canon has two parts: consecratory and dispensatory. The first part cannot be altered; the dispensation/administration can. (N.B not because of the can.6)

    That is why it is very important to give the correct definition of things.

    "error- an act or condition of ignorant or imprudent deviation from a code of behavior ... 3. something produced by mistake, 4. the difference between an observed or calculated value and a true value. ... ERROR suggests the existence of a standard or guide and a straying from the right course through failure to make effective use of this; thus, an error in addition involves some failure in following the rules of addition..."  Webster's Dictionary, 1979

    There is no need to involve the Holy Father to resolve the difference of opinion between Angelus and DecemRationis, (which Pope would you ask anyway?)

    We still need the definition of the Canon. What is the Canon of the Mass?

    Texana,

    Thank you for your serious and thoughtful response without polemical bias.

    I was addressing the Trentian canon on the Canon as well, and addressed its language. It simply does not indicate that it can't be changed or altered.

    The power of the Church, and it's sovereign, the pope, is complete and full over matters concerning faith and morals. The burden is on those asserting a limitation of that power to identify the divine source of that limitation. The Church herself may indicate where her prerogatives are limited, or God may have revealed those limitations in Scripture. I have referred to two such limitations: one expressed in the council of Trent, the other in Scripture.

    The Church says, in Trent, that she has complete power over the sacraments, "their substance being untouched," - i.e, the Church is limited in that she cannot alter the "substance" of the sacraments, which I have argued is the sacramental form. Pax has quoted Pius XII in Mediator Dei above the sacred liturgy having "divine elements" which the Church cannot change.

    Now, I say those "divine elements" refer to those pertaining to the Sacrament of the Eucharist of which the Mass is the vehicle. You are right to ask, "where is the Canon defined, or what is the Canon?" And I would follow that with, "where does it say the Canon cannot be changed?"

    Again, I say the burden is not on those who argue the Church has the power to change the Canon to identify the source from which we argue she has that power.  Her power, and that of her sovereign, the pope, is vast and full and complete in the matters of faith and morals - and a restriction on that general grant has to be identified, if one is to be imposed.

    Those who want to restrict the Church's power over the liturgy have the burden to identify the basis for that assertion, and I have give the basis in my claim that the Church cannot alter the sacramental form of the Eucharist by changing the words of Christ in the institution of the sacrament.

    I say, if  you want to say the Church can't make changes to the Canon, you have to do the same, and neither you nor Angelus have. 

    Interesting discussion, and I again thank your for your input.

    Please proceed.

    DR

    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41955
    • Reputation: +23991/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #35 on: January 29, 2024, 09:14:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • The power of the Church, and it's sovereign, the pope, is complete and full over matters concerning faith and morals. The burden is on those asserting a limitation of that power to identify the divine source of that limitation. The Church herself may indicate where her prerogatives are limited, or God may have revealed those limitations in Scripture. I have referred to two such limitations: one expressed in the council of Trent, the other in Scripture.

    I agree with the bolded.  At one point, a poster asked for docuмents showing that the Pope CAN change the Canon, but I agree that the burden would be to show docuмents/teaching that the Pope CANNOT change the Canon.  I'm not seeing why a Pope could not change the Canon.  We do have Quo Primum, but a Pope cannot bind another Pope (an equal cannot bind an equal) ... outside of that which has been established by Divine Law, or solemn teachings, etc.

    At some point we had the various saints currently in the Tridentine Canon added to it, and there's a good chance others were added here or there in different parts of the Church.  I also don't see a theological reason why St. Joseph couldn't be added to that list, or other saints added to the list, or even some removed from the list.  Since the section concludes with "and all the saints", they're all virtually included anyway, so it seems a bit arbitrary which names are mentioned, outside Our Lady of course, and the Apostles.

    In fact, also part of the Canon, in the Commemoration for the Dead, the priest is at liberty to insert the name(s) of departed faithful.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #36 on: January 29, 2024, 09:21:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Texana,

    I  will  add that the quote from Trent in your post indicates, "the Catholic Church, that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, instituted the sacred canon many centuries ago." The Church instituted the sacred canon, and for the purpose that it might be "reverently offered and received."

    It would seem to me to be entirely consistent for her to change what she instituted on the same basis, namely "for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places."

    DR
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41955
    • Reputation: +23991/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #37 on: January 29, 2024, 09:24:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In fact, also part of the Canon, in the Commemoration for the Dead, the priest is at liberty to insert the name(s) of departed faithful.

    I suspect that different priests might also have inserted different names in the commemoration of the saints, perhaps a patron of the church, or the saints over whose relics the Mass was being offered, etc.  Just as the section below, despite being part of the Canon, wasn't 100% fixed, I do suspect that the commemoration of saints may have been similar in the early centuries.

    Meménto étiam, Dómine, famulórum famularúmque tuárum N . . . et N . . . qui nos præcessérunt cuм signo fídei, et dórmiunt in somno pacis. Ipsis, Dómine, et ómnnibus in Christo quiescéntibus, locuм refrigérii, lucis et pacis, ut indúlgeas, deprecámur. Per eúndem Christum Dóminum nostrum. Amen.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13827
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #38 on: January 29, 2024, 09:31:29 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Those who want to restrict the Church's power over the liturgy have the burden to identify the basis for that assertion, and I have give the basis in my claim that the Church cannot alter the sacramental form of the Eucharist by changing the words of Christ in the institution of the sacrament.
    I agree with the bolded.  At one point, a poster asked for docuмents showing that the Pope CAN change the Canon, but I agree that the burden would be to show docuмents/teaching that the Pope CANNOT change the Canon.  I'm not seeing why a Pope could not change the Canon.  We do have Quo Primum, but a Pope cannot bind another Pope (an equal cannot bind an equal) ... outside of that which has been established by Divine Law, or solemn teachings, etc.

    At some point we had the various saints currently in the Tridentine Canon added to it, and there's a good chance others were added here or there in different parts of the Church.  I also don't see a theological reason why St. Joseph couldn't be added to that list, or other saints added to the list, or even some removed from the list.  Since the section concludes with "and all the saints", they're all virtually included anyway, so it seems a bit arbitrary which names are mentioned, outside Our Lady of course, and the Apostles.
    Snips from Dimond-Wathen interview:

    Here is a key question, whether a successor can override pope Pius V with regard to the establishment of the Rite of the Mass. It’s a key question.

    It was never considered that the pope could go contrary to this ruling because Quo Primum was issued to protect the Mass. It was as strong of legislation as the pope could possibly impose. If we say that his successor is not bound by this legislation, we have to say that the Church has no way of protecting it’s own liturgy....

    ... People have the idea that the pope, because he is the head of the Church, has limitless authority. This is altogether wrong. He is not at all limitless in what he may do, he is strictly bound to what he must do and he is bound to adhere to what has been established. The role and the duty of the pope not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don’t deviate from it....

    ...Question:
    ....Fr., there's an old legal principle which says; "he who makes the law can change the law", would this also apply in the church? In other words, we had pope Paul VI making a change, did he not have a right to make this change and must not we, as Catholics, follow whatever change he authorizes? 

    Fr. Wathen:

    I do not agree that he who makes the law may always abrogate it, especially if he who makes the law is doing nothing else but enunciating and particularizing a tradition.

    When pope Pius V established the Mass, he was merely canonizing a tradition. He was fixing something and making it irrevocable and unchangeable after centuries of development. Pope Pius V, once he made this law, had no right to change it, simply because, that is an error. The pope's business is not to make and then to change, the pope's business is to preserve, to formulate, in order that there be a preservation of all that was established, even by the Apostles...

    ...The Mass of the Roman Rite, there is only one, Pius V said that there could never be but one, and he had the authority to impose this for all time.

    If he  did not have the authority to do so. even to the extent of binding all his successors, this is to say that he, the pope, did not even know the limits of his own authority. 

    This is to say that this pope attempted to do something which he had no authority to do. And we say well then, if he did not have that authority, then his authority was limited. We say that if his authority is limited, then all his successors authority is limited also.

    We say yes, the authority of the pope is limited, but it is not limited to establishing the liturgy of the Mass for all time, [rather] it is limited to where a successor cannot discard this Mass because of a whimsy or a deviation in Catholic belief, and there has to be a deviation in Catholic belief on the part of pope Paul VI who would introduce such a mass  as what we have, the Novus Ordo Missae….
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 983
    • Reputation: +411/-77
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #39 on: January 29, 2024, 09:37:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Texana,

    Thank you for your serious and thoughtful response without polemical bias.

    I was addressing the Trentian canon on the Canon as well, and addressed its language. It simply does not indicate that it can't be changed or altered.

    The power of the Church, and it's sovereign, the pope, is complete and full over matters concerning faith and morals. The burden is on those asserting a limitation of that power to identify the divine source of that limitation. The Church herself may indicate where her prerogatives are limited, or God may have revealed those limitations in Scripture. I have referred to two such limitations: one expressed in the council of Trent, the other in Scripture.

    The Church says, in Trent, that she has complete power over the sacraments, "their substance being untouched," - i.e, the Church is limited in that she cannot alter the "substance" of the sacraments, which I have argued is the sacramental form. Pax has quoted Pius XII in Mediator Dei above the sacred liturgy having "divine elements" which the Church cannot change.

    Now, I say those "divine elements" refer to those pertaining to the Sacrament of the Eucharist of which the Mass is the vehicle. You are right to ask, "where is the Canon defined, or what is the Canon?" And I would follow that with, "where does it say the Canon cannot be changed?"

    Again, I say the burden is not on those who argue the Church has the power to change the Canon to identify the source from which we argue she has that power.  Her power, and that of her sovereign, the pope, is vast and full and complete in the matters of faith and morals - and a restriction on that general grant has to be identified, if one is to be imposed.

    Those who want to restrict the Church's power over the liturgy have the burden to identify the basis for that assertion, and I have give the basis in my claim that the Church cannot alter the sacramental form of the Eucharist by changing the words of Christ in the institution of the sacrament.

    I say, if  you want to say the Church can't make changes to the Canon, you have to do the same, and neither you nor Angelus have. 

    Interesting discussion, and I again thank your for your input.

    Please proceed.

    DR



    DR, you bring up three different issues:

    1. You referred to the "divine elements of the Mass":

    Quote
    Pax has quoted Pius XII in Mediator Dei above the sacred liturgy having "divine elements" which the Church cannot change. Now, I say those "divine elements" refer to those pertaining to the Sacrament of the Eucharist of which the Mass is the vehicle.
    You seem to be talking about "the Form" here. Clearly a change in "the Form" will invalidate the Mass (as a Sacrifice which depends on two-fold Consecration) and the Sacrament itself. This is not the same thing, obviously, as changing the Canon of the Mass or the Roman Missal.


    2. Then you ask about the definition of Canon itself:

    Quote
    "You are right to ask, "where is the Canon defined, or what is the Canon?"

    The Canon is defined in the actual Missal of Pius V. Open up any pre-1960s Missal, and it will tell you where the Canon starts. You can also see in De defectibus that the Canon and the Consecration are not the same thing when it says in section 32:

    Quote
    32. If, while the priest is celebrating Mass, the church is violated before he has reached the Canon, the Mass is to be discontinued; if after the Canon, it is not to be discontinued. If there is fear of an attack by enemies, or of a flood or of the collapse of the building where the Mass is being celebrated, the Mass is to be discontinued if it is before the Consecration; if this fear arises after the Consecration, however, the priest may omit everything else and go on at once to the reception of the Sacrament.

    3. Then you say where does it say the Canon cannot be changed:

    Quote
    And I would follow that with, "where does it say the Canon cannot be changed?"

    As I stated above, the word "canon" means a "standard of measure." If you modify that "standard" in any way (by adding, removing or modifying anything) it is no longer the same "standard." You will have "abrogated" the previous standard and replaced it with a new standard. It would be like claiming that a "yardstick" can be four feet long in the future, but still calling it a "yardstick." It makes no sense to do that.

    The Council of Trent, Session XXII absolutely forbade the "abrogation" of the Canon of the Mass, as it existed at that time. Additionally, Quo Primum forbade the changing of the Missal of Pius V itself, in perpetuity. The 1962 Missal claims to be a lawful revision of the Missal of Pius V, not a new Missal. To change the Canon of the Mass in a revision of the Missal of Pius V triggers the anathema in Quo Primum as well as the anathema in Trent Session XXII.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41955
    • Reputation: +23991/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #40 on: January 29, 2024, 09:39:26 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Paul VI's radical rewrite isn't even in the same category as adding St. Joseph to the Canon.

    If I were Pope, I'd actually change the commemoration of saints in the first part of the Canon to permit adding saints, N ... et N ... just like in the Commemoration of the dead, so that the patrons of churches, and countries, and the saints whose relics are beneath the altar, etc. might be named explicitly ... adding a law declaring it a mortal sin to add someone there who isn't a saint canonized by the Church.

    I don't see that part as being any different from the Commemoration of the Faithful, to be honest, especially given that they're all mentioned in the "and of all the saints" part anyway.

    Is the priest "changing" the Canon when he inserts the names of the person for whom the Mass is being offered, or of his deceased mother, in the Commemoration of the Faithful Departed?


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41955
    • Reputation: +23991/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #41 on: January 29, 2024, 09:41:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To change the Canon of the Mass in a revision of the Missal of Pius V triggers the anathema in Quo Primum as well as the anathema in Trent Session XXII.

    No, not if a Pope changes it.  It would be another thing for a Bishop or priest to try it obviously.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #42 on: January 29, 2024, 09:54:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • DR, you bring up three different issues:

    1. You referred to the "divine elements of the Mass":
    You seem to be talking about "the Form" here. Clearly a change in "the Form" will invalidate the Mass (as a Sacrifice which depends on two-fold Consecration) and the Sacrament itself. This is not the same thing, obviously, as changing the Canon of the Mass or the Roman Missal.


    2. Then you ask about the definition of Canon itself:

    The Canon is defined in the actual Missal of Pius V. Open up any pre-1960s Missal, and it will tell you where the Canon starts. You can also see in De defectibus that the Canon and the Consecration are not the same thing when it says in section 32:

    3. Then you say where does it say the Canon cannot be changed:

    As I stated above, the word "canon" means a "standard of measure." If you modify that "standard" in any way (by adding, removing or modifying anything) it is no longer the same "standard." You will have "abrogated" the previous standard and replaced it with a new standard. It would be like claiming that a "yardstick" can be four feet long in the future, but still calling it a "yardstick." It makes no sense to do that.

    The Council of Trent, Session XXII absolutely forbade the "abrogation" of the Canon of the Mass, as it existed at that time. Additionally, Quo Primum forbade the changing of the Missal of Pius V itself, in perpetuity. The 1962 Missal claims to be a lawful revision of the Missal of Pius V, not a new Missal. To change the Canon of the Mass in a revision of the Missal of Pius V triggers the anathema in Quo Primum as well as the anathema in Trent Session XXII.

    Angelus,

    My reference to the "divine elements" comes from a quote by Pax from Mediator Dei:


    Quote
    50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circuмstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized.

    What are the "divine elements"? The sacramental form is certainly a divine element. So my position is supported there. If you want to say "divine elements" are broader than that, give your authority.

    The Canon of the Missal of Pius V is certainly laid out in that Missal. Of course. That's not an eternal, universal definition of a Canon that cannot be changed.

    I've already addressed your argument about the Trentian canon. No, it doesn't say what you say it does. Quote me some authority, other than yourself, that the Canon of the Missal of Pius V, or a specific Canon in use by the Church at one point (and it has been changed), can't be changed.







    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #43 on: January 29, 2024, 10:00:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Snips from Dimond-Wathen interview:

    Here is a key question, whether a successor can override pope Pius V with regard to the establishment of the Rite of the Mass. It’s a key question.

    It was never considered that the pope could go contrary to this ruling because Quo Primum was issued to protect the Mass. It was as strong of legislation as the pope could possibly impose. If we say that his successor is not bound by this legislation, we have to say that the Church has no way of protecting it’s own liturgy....

    ... People have the idea that the pope, because he is the head of the Church, has limitless authority. This is altogether wrong. He is not at all limitless in what he may do, he is strictly bound to what he must do and he is bound to adhere to what has been established. The role and the duty of the pope not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don’t deviate from it....

    ...Question:
    ....Fr., there's an old legal principle which says; "he who makes the law can change the law", would this also apply in the church? In other words, we had pope Paul VI making a change, did he not have a right to make this change and must not we, as Catholics, follow whatever change he authorizes? 

    Fr. Wathen:

    I do not agree that he who makes the law may always abrogate it, especially if he who makes the law is doing nothing else but enunciating and particularizing a tradition.

    When pope Pius V established the Mass, he was merely canonizing a tradition. He was fixing something and making it irrevocable and unchangeable after centuries of development. Pope Pius V, once he made this law, had no right to change it, simply because, that is an error. The pope's business is not to make and then to change, the pope's business is to preserve, to formulate, in order that there be a preservation of all that was established, even by the Apostles...

    ...The Mass of the Roman Rite, there is only one, Pius V said that there could never be but one, and he had the authority to impose this for all time.

    If he  did not have the authority to do so. even to the extent of binding all his successors, this is to say that he, the pope, did not even know the limits of his own authority.

    This is to say that this pope attempted to do something which he had no authority to do. And we say well then, if he did not have that authority, then his authority was limited. We say that if his authority is limited, then all his successors authority is limited also.

    We say yes, the authority of the pope is limited, but it is not limited to establishing the liturgy of the Mass for all time, [rather] it is limited to where a successor cannot discard this Mass because of a whimsy or a deviation in Catholic belief, and there has to be a deviation in Catholic belief on the part of pope Paul VI who would introduce such a mass  as what we have, the Novus Ordo Missae….

    Stubborn,

    I respect Father Wathen's view - and yours - but it's hardly authoritative. 
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 983
    • Reputation: +411/-77
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass
    « Reply #44 on: January 29, 2024, 10:01:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, not if a Pope changes it.  It would be another thing for a Bishop or priest to try it obviously.

    A future Pope cannot contradict the irreformable teachings of the Council of Trent:

    Quote
    CHAPTER IV 
    On the Canon of the Mass. And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.

    CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema. 

    And the Catholic Encyclopedia directly contradicts your interpretation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm) :

    Quote
    There were, however, additions made to the "Communicantes" so as to introduce special allusions on certain feasts; the two lists of saints, in the "Communicantes" and "Nobis quoque peccatoribus", were enlarged so as to include various local people, and even the "Hanc igitur" and the "Qui pridie" were modified on certain days. The Council of Trent (1545-63) restrained this tendency and ordered that "the holy Canon composed many centuries ago" should be kept pure and unchanged; it also condemned those who say that the "Canon of the Mass contains errors and should be abolished" (Sess. XXII., cap. iv. can. vi; Denzinger, 819, 830). Pope Pius V (1566-72) published an authentic edition of the Roman Missal in 1570, and accompanied it with a Bull forbidding anyone to either add, or in any way change any part of it. This Missal is to be the only one used in the West and everyone is to conform to it, except that local uses which can be proved to have existed for more than 200 years are to be kept. This exception saved the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Byzantine Rites, as well as a few ancient modified forms of the Roman Rite, such as the Dominican, Carmelite, and Carthusian Missals.

    It specifically uses the example of other Saints being unlawfully added to the Communicantes as one of the reasons for the reform of Pius V and the teaching of Trent itself.