Angelus,

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


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.

DR, read the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for the Canon of the Mass. Its definition and history can be found there:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm

That entry gives plenty of references for you to dig into on your own. My position agrees with the position taken in that article:

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.

Stubborn,

I respect Father Wathen's view - and yours - but it's hardly authoritative.

It seems what you guys are looking for does not exist, or does not exist to your satisfaction.

Far as the words of consecration, we have The Council of Florence and Pope St. Pius V's De Defectibus. This means they are non-negotiable, can never change. The Church does not make and then change, the Church makes the rules, and her popes teach, protect, defend and preserve - period. 

Far as adding St. Joseph into the canon, per Quo Primum it is not permitted.

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

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

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.

You clearly miss the point.  Yes, Trent decided to restrain adding Saints to the Communicantes ... but then could un-restrain.  Church can bind and un-bind.  There's nothing fixed by divine law in the Canon.

What part of where a future Pope could come along an lift this restraint don't you understand?

I would open up the Communicantes of the saints for addition (under various guidelines, namely, that they must be canonized Catholic saints).  There's no reason that the patron saint of the church the Mass is being offered in or the saint whose Feast Day it is couldn't be inserted there.  ... Nor any reason that the Church (aka the Pope) could not insert the name of St. Joseph into the list.

After all, the Church left the commemoration of the faithful open to the insertion of names, and therefore the Canon could be slightly different depending on which departed faithful are named therein.  This runs contrary to the notion of some inherently immutable Canon.

What is this abstract concept of "The Church" that doesn't include the Popes.  When a Pope teaches or imposes something, that's "the Church" imposing it.

Equals cannot bind equals, and a Pope cannot bind another Pope.  In cases of Divine Law, the Popes are bound by a higher authority, God.  But in all things below Divine Law (and its extension in natural law), a Pope can change whatever he wishes to.

"The Church" is not the pope. "The Church" is the Universal Magisterium, IOW, it's something that's been a part of the universal Church and universally practiced and believed since the time of the Apostles. Like the words of consecration and the Liturgy of the Roman Rite, and the names of the saints mentioned in the Canon.

You are making it out to be something it's not, as if the pope just decided he wanted to make a ruling on something and some future pope can decide he prefers something else, so he changes it. THAT'S "the pope", not "The Church."

Wow! That is some befuddled ecclesiology as well as fundamental and  sacramental theologies right there! Oof!

Where did you receive your STL? I certainly want to avoid that pontifical school!

You must have gone through the same training Lad did.

A papal bull in which a pope doesn't issue a definition on a matter of the faith by his apostolic authority, such as Benedictus Deus of Benedict XXII, simply doesn't bind a future sovereign - I agree with Lad on that. St. Pius V was not defining the Canon. He simply said regarding the liturgy and missal he ordered:



In fact, doesn't he simply call his bull a "statute, ordinance . . . precept," etc.?

I recall Michael Davies in one of his books looking at almost identical language in non-infallible and reformable bulls of pontiffs, but I can't find it at present.

Rama P. Coomaraswamy, in his work, The Problems with the New Mass, says this:


I don't know where he got that from, but I can't find exactly that in the bull - which would have been a very strong authority in my favor. But I found this:



I think that supports my position well enough. Are not the various parts of the TLM Canon, such as the Hanc Igitur, Communicantes, etc. prayers or parts that are "ceremonial"? I think so.

DR, apparently you didn't bother to read the Catholic Encyclopedia article that explains how the Catholic Church understands the Canon of the Mass both before and after Trent/Quo Primum. Instead, you want to make it a debate about "somebody's opinion" vs. "somebody else's opinion."

The questions you are asking about the Canon of the Mass have already been settled by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church long ago. What I said was just repeating what the Church has already decided and teaches in the matter.

Most importantly, if you (and others) think that a Pope can change a "canon" (which is an irreformable doctrine) defined by the Ecuмenical Council of Trent, then we are working from vastly different premises and will never agree on the conclusions.

I think that supports my position well enough. Are not the various parts of the TLM Canon, such as the Hanc Igitur, Communicantes, etc. prayers or parts that are "ceremonial"? I think so.

I don't believe that is so. Quo Primum's second paragraph says:

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their
work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from
elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same
sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.
When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection,
We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy
the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies
they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.

The idea that one pope cannot bind another pope, if that is true at all, it is wrong in this matter.

Pope St. Pius V restored what always was, he did not create anything new, that is what he essentially says above. As such, Pope St. Pius V codified an already established tradition, the nature of this tradition was liturgical, and by his authority he bound all Roman Rite Catholics to that tradition in perpetuity under penalty of anathema.

No pope can change the established liturgical tradition that is traced back to the Apostles, can't be done. Even he didn't change it and I fail to see how any other pope has the authority to change it either. 

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

Dear DecemRationis,

You are very close. Please expand on your sentence "...Sacrament of Eucharist of which the Mass is the vehicle."
"Canon" refers to the Canon of the Mass; what is this vehicle called...? Additionally, could you give the definitions of the word, "sacrament", and of "Sacrament of the Eucharist"; we will need it. Thank you.