The Canon of the Mass is 967 words (I cut and pasted the '62 Missal and did a word count). This being said, hypothetically speaking, Pius XII could have added St. Joseph to the Canon because, as we all must know, in non-essentials the pope has power over the Canon of the Mass. I understand the argument, "But putting St. Joseph in the Canon opens the door of change..." I get it. It would have been interesting had Pope Pius, instead of John, added St. Joseph to the Canon.Dear OABrownson1876,
All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are toI could be wrong, but it says that this does *not* apply *only* to those Churches with "the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago..."
be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
The Canon of the Mass is 967 words (I cut and pasted the '62 Missal and did a word count). This being said, hypothetically speaking, Pius XII could have added St. Joseph to the Canon because, as we all must know, in non-essentials the pope has power over the Canon of the Mass. I understand the argument, "But putting St. Joseph in the Canon opens the door of change..." I get it. It would have been interesting had Pope Pius, instead of John, added St. Joseph to the Canon.Dear OABrownson1876,
Dear OABrownson1876,
Please cite any docuмent by a pope or a council stating that "in non essentials the pope has power over the Canon of the Mass." What is the Canon of the Mass and which part is non essential to what?
Council of Trent, Session XXI
CHAPTER II.
The power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, (l) it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have intimated, when he says; Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. (m) And indeed it is sufficiently manifest that he himself exercised this power,- as in many other things, so in regard of this very sacrament; when, after having ordained certain things touching the use thereof, he says; The rest I will set in order when I come. (n) Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,- from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,- she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one(o) species, (p) and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at plea sure, without the authority of the Church itself.
Pius XII, Mediator Dei
It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship
********the footnote 50 reference in Mediator Dei
Code of Canon Law (1917)
Canon 1257. Unius Apostolicae Sedis est tum sacram ordinare liturgiam,tum liturgicos approbare libros.
I would argue that the Canon of the Mass is essential, and part of Tradition, being fixed by Pope St Gregory the Great in the 4th century. Also, it was further codified by Quo Primum and Pope St Pius V. To add St Joseph would be contrary to 1,600 years of history (and maybe longer). It's unnecessary.
For John XXIII to have legally added St Joseph, he would've had to have revised Quo Primum, which we know he didn't. A papal committee in 1962 does not have the power to overrule an Apostolic Constitution (and arguably, Catholic Tradition), of Quo Primum.
It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, (l) it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places.
Dear DecemRationis,
Texana,
Here you go:
Dear DecemRationis,
Please continue.
It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worshipThe above is point 58 of the docuмent. Below, is point 50, which comes before it. That's why the above point says "it follows from this...". Meaning, the pope enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God (not including the Divine elements, which (per point 50), cannot be changed in ANY WAY by men.
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.
The above is point 58 of the docuмent. Below, is point 50, which comes before it. That's why the above point says "it follows from this...". Meaning, the pope enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God (not including the Divine elements, which (per point 50), cannot be changed in ANY WAY by men.
First, it would be nice if you could provide a source for the claim that the change was done by a "papal committee."It was added by the 'Sacred Congregation of Rites' as one of the first actions of V2. The original edition of the 62 missal was a direct papal docuмent (i.e. an Apostolic Constitution, which referenced Quo Primum and asserted (correctly) that the 62 missal was in the spirit of Trent and part of the legal tree of Quo Primum).
It was added by the 'Sacred Congregation of Rites' as one of the first actions of V2. The original edition of the 62 missal was a direct papal docuмent (i.e. an Apostolic Constitution, which referenced Quo Primum and asserted (correctly) that the 62 missal was in the spirit of Trent and part of the legal tree of Quo Primum).
The addition of St Joseph was not part of Quo Primum, nor directly from the pope, but came from a V2 committee.
RORATE CÆLI: 1962 Missal at 50 Saint Joseph is added to the Canon: the last major change to the Traditional Mass as we know it (rorate-caeli.blogspot.com) (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/11/1962-missal-at-50-saint-joseph-is-added.html)
At the discussion of the schema on the liturgy at the first session of Vatican II, at least three bishops proposed that St. Joseph’s name be added to the Canon of the Mass. One of them was Bishop Peter Čule from Mostar, Yugoslavia, whose health had been seriously compromised by his having been sentenced to eleven years of hard labor in one of Tito’s show trials in 1948.
New Liturgical Movement: On the Insertion of St Joseph’s Name into the Roman Canon (https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/12/on-insertion-of-st-josephs-name-into.html)
My understanding is that the "divine elements" are those things that make the sacrament a valid sacrament (i.e.. the form). Just as each sacrament has many other prayers said, they are not the critical words that make the sacrament valid, and those things can be changed by the pope.
No one here is claiming (and definitely not me) that the sacred liturgy doesn't have divine elements- the form of the consecration, for example.
The Canon of the Mass is 967 words (I cut and pasted the '62 Missal and did a word count). This being said, hypothetically speaking, Pius XII could have added St. Joseph to the Canon because, as we all must know, in non-essentials the pope has power over the Canon of the Mass. I understand the argument, "But putting St. Joseph in the Canon opens the door of change..." I get it. It would have been interesting had Pope Pius, instead of John, added St. Joseph to the Canon.Oftentimes this is what people think is the reason why others are against the post 1955 changes made by Pius XII. However, the reasoning is not that they "opened the door of change", but that the changes became a problem over time and that Pius XII would not have approved of them if he knew what would have happened over time. The Pian changes were not inherently evil.
My understanding is that the "divine elements" are those things that make the sacrament a valid sacrament (i.e.. the form). Just as each sacrament has many other prayers said, they are not the critical words that make the sacrament valid, and those things can be changed by the pope.
My understanding is that the "divine elements" are those things that make the sacrament a valid sacrament (i.e.. the form). Just as each sacrament has many other prayers said, they are not the critical words that make the sacrament valid, and those things can be changed by the pope.
It seems to me the argument of St. Joseph being added to the Canon seems to revolve around the question, was John a pope or not, rather than the question, does the pope have authority to touch the Canon.
It is apparent that several of the pontiffs between the peace of Constantine 325 and Pope Gregory 600 made additions to the Canon. It is my understanding that the Canon was relatively fixed by the year 600. Christ obviously did not mention Cosmas and Damian, et alia, when the first Mass was offered. I am sure it was the custom of certain localities to add or omit certain prayers in the Canon.Dear OABrownson1876,
Playing the devil's advocate, it took the Church 1800+ years to define the Immaculate Conception, and the act was done by papal fiat. Pius IX consulted the opinion of the bishops, "Is this part of the deposit of Faith?," but in the end he did it of his own free will, exercising personal, extraordinary infallibility. One could argue that Pope John did a similar thing with the Canon. It seems to me the argument of St. Joseph being added to the Canon seems to revolve around the question, was John a pope or not, rather than the question, does the pope have authority to touch the Canon.
There's a lot of murkiness around the changes to the liturgy in the 60s, or late 50s. I've read the claim (of course, without source provided) that the "for all" was being introduced into the Mass even before the Novus Ordo.This text is from Tradition in Action site. There is a sentence in there about the laity having an equal status with the priest.
Anyone know of a good study about the changes that were made to the liturgy before the Novus Ordo? I believe there were several official - Vatican approved - changes in the Latin Mass throughout the 60s. And then there was all kinds of nonsense going on with the bishops in various countries, such as my own USA, making changes.
The whole period is a mess, and apparently there's no good record of it. Or is there? Again, anyone know of a good study on this?
Dear OABrownson1876,
So far in this thread, no one has been able to cite one docuмent from the Church, or from a pope that stated that a pope can change the Canon in any way. Nor did you define what the Canon is, or provide any other requested information. You are rushing to conclusions. Why?
Dear OABrownson1876,Texana, The Canon begins at the first ringing of the bells at the Sanctus, and if you open your missal, '55, '62, the pages should read "Canon of the Mass." The first prayer is the Communicantes, ending with the Per ipsum...The Canon of the Mass has undergone a growth from the first Mass on Holy Thursday, to the present form, whether the priest includes St. Joseph or not.
So far in this thread, no one has been able to cite one docuмent from the Church, or from a pope that stated that a pope can change the Canon in any way. Nor did you define what the Canon is, or provide any other requested information. You are rushing to conclusions. Why?
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.
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.
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).
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,
Council of Trent, Session XXII
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm
One must understand, the Latin word "canon (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/canon#Latin)" 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.
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
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.
Dear DecemRationis,
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?
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.
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.
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.Snips from Dimond-Wathen interview:
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.
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
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.
"You are right to ask, "where is the Canon defined, or what is the Canon?"
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.
And I would follow that with, "where does it say the Canon cannot be changed?"
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.
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.
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.
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….
No, not if a Pope changes it. It would be another thing for a Bishop or priest to try it obviously.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody is directly asking: What is the received liturgical tradition?Do you know the answers to these questions?
So much of the focus here seems on centralised, administrative authority. What, however, has been the received tradition which may vary according to local received usage.
St. Joseph's name was nowhere part of that tradition or usages.
The questions to ask: Why was the name of our Lord's putative father excluded from the Canon during its initial formation? Why did the name of St. Joseph continue to be excluded over the centuries?
Once the answers to those questions have been obtained, then can one properly proceed to discussing the suitability, liceity, and morality of introducing the name into the Canon in the early 1960s.
Stubborn,It seems what you guys are looking for does not exist, or does not exist to your satisfaction.
I respect Father Wathen's view - and yours - but it's hardly authoritative.
The Church does not make and then change, the Church makes the rules, and her popes teach, protect, defend and preserve - period.
A future Pope cannot contradict the irreformable teachings of the Council of Trent (http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm):
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.
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 ...Something similar exists in the Canon found in the 8th-century Stowe Missal (aka Lorrha Missal) from Ireland where a brief litany of saints follows the Momento etiam Domine, which itself is much longer than the Momento of the Missale Romanum.
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."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.
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 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.Wow! That is some befuddled ecclesiology as well as fundamental and sacramental theologies right there! Oof!
Wow! That is some befuddled ecclesiology as well as fundamental and sacramental theologies right there! Oof!:facepalm: You must have gone through the same training Lad did.
Where did you receive your STL? I certainly want to avoid that pontifical school!
:facepalm:
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:
Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
As Leo XIII (1878-1903) said in the Bull Apostolicae Curae:
The Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any Sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or “ceremonial” parts to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or hymns before or after the actual words of the form are recited.... 45
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/problemsnm.htm#p26
24. In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, usually called the "matter and form".grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the "matter" and "form", it still pertains chiefly to the "form"; since the "matter" is the part which is not determined by itself but which is determined by the "form".
http://catholictradition.org/Encyclicals/apostolicae-curae.htm
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 theirThe idea that one pope cannot bind another pope, if that is true at all, it is wrong in this matter.
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.
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.
Texana,Dear DecemRationis,
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,
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.
First, I don't think the CE article supports the reading you want to impose on it. Secondly, if it did support your position, I don't think it has much weight, not as much as Leo XIII and Magisterial sources. I certainly wouldn't cease inquiry and study on what it says, and I'm not.
If you want to establish that the issue of the Canon is settled, you're going to have to come up with some authority, since the CE doesn't have authority to settle anything - it can only refer to the settlement by the true authority, the Magisterium. So . . . where is it? It's not Quo Primum, which St. Pius V himself says is but his "statute, ordinance, command, precept," etc.
Instead of reading the CE, go back and read Quo Primum more closely.
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 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.
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.
DR, the authority is the Council of Trent. I have already said that at least 3-4 times. Here is the canon from Session XXII again:
The same concept (i.e., that the Canon of the Mass cannot be changed after Trent) is enshrined in Quo Primum (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm) by Pius V.
And my interpretation of the meaning and impact of Canon VI and Quo Primum is simply confirmed by the Catholic Encylopedia article (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm) when it says the following:
The CE article is not itself the authority. It simply provides the evidence that the Catholic Church interpreted Canon VI and Quo Primum to mean that the Canon of the Mass must remain "unchanged." Canon VI of Session XXII of Trent is the ultimate authority with Quo Primum (which is a Papal Bull, the most formal type of papal communication) as the confirmation from the Pope.
DR, the authority is the Council of Trent. I have already said that at least 3-4 times. Here is the canon from Session XXII again:
The same concept (i.e., that the Canon of the Mass cannot be changed after Trent) is enshrined in Quo Primum (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm) by Pius V.
And my interpretation of the meaning and impact of Canon VI and Quo Primum is simply confirmed by the Catholic Encylopedia article (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm) when it says the following:
The CE article is not itself the authority. It simply provides the evidence that the Catholic Church interpreted Canon VI and Quo Primum to mean that the Canon of the Mass must remain "unchanged." Canon VI of Session XXII of Trent is the ultimate authority with Quo Primum (which is a Papal Bull, the most formal type of papal communication) as the confirmation from the Pope.
The Church Has Spoken
Regarding this limitation of the rights and powers of the Pope and the Church there are at least four clear-cut pronouncements of the Magisterium; and all four may be found in Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum, the most authoritative compendium of definitions and declarations relating to matters of faith and morals.
(1) In the letter, Super quibusdam (Sept. 29, 1351), Pope Clement VI taught: "(T)he Roman Pontiff regarding the administration of the sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ.... always without violating those things which pertain to the integrity and necessary parts of the sacraments."
(2) The Council of Trent, Session XXI, Chap. 2: "It (the Council) declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circuмstances, times and places."
(3) Pope St. Pius X in the letter, Ex quo, nono (Dec. 26,1910): "(I)t is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments."
(4) And, finally, on Nov. 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued the apostolic constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis, which reiterates and clarifies this same principle: "(A)s the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the 'substance of the sacraments,' that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign."
Forceful and unmistakably clear is the language of St. Pius X: "no right whatsoever." And Pius XII's words, "no power," are equally unequivocal. These prohibitions, be it noted, refer to "the substance" of the sacraments.
Substance vs. Ceremony
Before going into the meaning of "substance" of a sacrament, it may perhaps be useful to consider some aspects of the sacraments that do not fall under this concept. In his bull, Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII lays down an important distinction: "In the rite for the performance and administration of any sacrament a distinction is justly made between its 'ceremonial' and its 'essential' part, the latter being usually called its 'matter and form.'" Thus, although the Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any sacrament, She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the nonessential rites, or "ceremonial" parts, used in the administration of the sacraments, such as processions, prayers or hymns before or after the actual words of the form are recited, etc.
But every Catholic should know that not even the Pope can rule (for example) that alcohol may be used instead of water as the matter of the Sacrament of Baptism; or that the words, "I christen you, William," may be used as the form instead of, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Innovations such as these would be examples of touching, or violating the substance of a sacrament.
Substance of a Sacrament
As is generally explained by theologians, the substance of a sacrament consists of those elements of the sacrament which are absolutely necessary in order to have the sacrament; viz.,the matter and the form. By the matter is meant the specific, determinate, sensible thing or things used in the external rite of the sacrament; for example, water in Baptism, bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist. The form is the sequence of specific, determinate words pronounced by the minister of the sacrament. "The word," says St. Augustine, "is joined to the element, and it becomes a sacrament."
Addis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary comments thus: "The Council of Trent defines that though the Church may change rites and ceremonies, it cannot alter the 'substance' of the sacraments. This follows from the very nature of a sacrament. The matter and form have no power in themselves to give grace. This power depends solely on the will of God, Who has made the grace promised depend on the use of certain things and words, so that if these are altered in their essence the sacrament is altogether absent."
Our present inquiry, related specifically to the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, is whether or not this substitution of the words "for all men" in place of "for many" in the consecration form constitutes a forbidden violation of the substance of the Sacrament. And therefore we should also consider a certain distinguishing feature of this Sacrament; namely, that it was instituted in specie. As we read in The Catholic Encyclopedia (V. XIII, p. 299, 1913 ed.): "Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some sacraments (e.g. baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined, e.g. to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders." Since the Holy Eucharist was instituted in specie (and all theologians agree upon this), Our Lord Himself at the Last Supper having specified the exact words of the form, there was absolutely nothing left to the Church to determine in this respect.
Wayback Machine (archive.org) (https://web.archive.org/web/20180614045347/http://huttongibson.com/PDFs/huttongibson_robberchurch_book.pdf) (pages 79-81)
While the law issued by a pontiff is pending - as it was after Pius V issued it, and when the CE was written - of course no one could add to it or change it.
The article simply doesn't support a position that a subsequent pope couldn't alter the canon or other nonessential prayers used in the sacramental rite in a new or revised missal.
DR, the authority is the Council of Trent. I have already said that at least 3-4 times. Here is the canon from Session XXII again:Dear Angelus,
The same concept (i.e., that the Canon of the Mass cannot be changed after Trent) is enshrined in Quo Primum (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm) by Pius V.
And my interpretation of the meaning and impact of Canon VI and Quo Primum is simply confirmed by the Catholic Encylopedia article (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm) when it says the following:
The CE article is not itself the authority. It simply provides the evidence that the Catholic Church interpreted Canon VI and Quo Primum to mean that the Canon of the Mass must remain "unchanged." Canon VI of Session XXII of Trent is the ultimate authority with Quo Primum (which is a Papal Bull, the most formal type of papal communication) as the confirmation from the Pope.
"Quo Primum is primarily a legal docuмent promulgating use of a certain liturgical book within the Latin Church. As a legal and administrative act it cannot bind a successor of equal status should he take the proper steps to depart from it.(https://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-validity-and-legality-of-mass-of.html?m=1)
Neither Pius V, nor any following pope, thought it was such. Two years earlier the same Pius V published Quod a nobis promulgating a Roman Breviary for general use which contains the same rules of use and prohibitions against alterations and threats of Divine retribution as Quo Primum. Urban VIII did not go into schism or heresy by changing the hymns and no one has suggested the 1911 breviary changes were illegal or invalid (although they were unwise)."
The Rad Trad: On the Validity and Legality of the Mass of Paul VI (https://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-validity-and-legality-of-mass-of.html?m=1)
There are two pervasive myths about S Pius V's liturgical interventions which will doubtless go on being purveyed until the Eschaton.(https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/pius-vs-1570-bull-4343)
(1) That he suppressed the local rites of the Middle Ages, only permitting the survival of those which had existed for more than 200 years. He was a centraliser and a standardiser.
(2) That his actions, following on from Trent, are closely analogous to, and provide a close precedent for, what Paul VI did after Vatican II.
Each of these myths is a travesty of history. Each results from a reading of History with the hindsight of knowing What Happened Afterwards, instead of trying to understand events in their own historical contexts. Since devils reside in details, and since I have written before about what he did with his Missal, I shall focus today on what he did to the Breviary.
The papal docuмent Quod a nobis, which introduces the 'Tridentine Breviary', repays careful reading. The Divine Office put in place by Gelasius and Gregory and reformed by Gregory VII had, S Pius tells us, diverged ab antiqua constitutione. So the pope wishes it to be recalled ad pristinam orandi regulam. Some people had deformed this praeclara constitutio by mutilations and changes; an awful lot of people (plurimi) had been seduced (allecti) by the brevity of a Breviary produced by the Spanish Cardinal Quignon. Even worse, in provincias paulatim irrepserat prava illa consuetudo ["that depraved custom"], namely, that bishops in churches which, from the beginning, had used the Roman Office, were producing privatum sibi quisquam Breviarium.
What S Pius V is dealing with here is the chaotic liturgical result of a century of printing. It may be difficult for us to appropriate imaginatively the differences that this invention made. Only in the age of this new technology could trendy clergy buy and use in vast numbers the new slick and fast Quignon Breviary; only now could meddling bishops, full of Good Ideas, thrust their latest clever novelties with ease upon their helpless dioceses. The words of S Pius seem almost to describe the chaos which was to follow under Pius XII and his successors: "Hence the total disruption of divine worship in so many places; hence a complete ignorance among the clergy of ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies; so that numberless ministers of the churches carry out their duty unbecomingly, not without enormous offence to the devout".
S Pius was reacting to to this technology-driven chaos by a reinstatement of Tradition; by the elimination of novelty and by a return to what had been received. Hence, he provided a form of the Roman Breviary carefully emended by the best scholarship available to him. It was, of course, a paradox that his reform was itself carried through by the use of the same technology which had created the problem!! But that paradox does nothing to change the fact that his action was an assertion of Tradition, a repression of innovation.
S Pius V's reform was thus an act of deliberate and profound conservatism. This is shown by his treatment of local usages which dated from well before the invention of printing. As for uses which were of more than two centuries standing: "that ancient right of saying and singing their office, we do not take away". Recognising, however, that many who possessed such ancient usages might nevertheless themselves prefer the revision which he is now promulgating, he permits them to adopt it, but only if the Bishop and the entire chapter agree. Entire!! Come-lately diocesans were thereby restrained, according to the words of this legislation, from abolishing the ancient uses of their churches; apparently, it needed only one curmudgeonly traditionalist on the Chapter to interpose his veto and thus to preserve the local customs. This seems to me a fairly rigorous affirmation of the the traditional diversities with which a process of organically evolving liturgy had endowed local churches, combined with a determination to eliminate novel fancies which had corrupted liturgy since printing made it easy for hierarchs to impose their whimsies. I wonder what he might have said could he have known that, four hundred years later, his own successors would be using printing to impose their whimsies!
S Pius V's reforms, as I have said, are commonly described as symptoms of counter-reformation centralisation and as an attempt rigorously to standardise the worship of the Latin Church. I think this profoundly and anachronistically misreads both the liturgical situation which he is addressing; and the legal framework which he carefully puts in place. Previous popes had fairly recently flirted with the idea of radical revisions of the Breviary, intending thus to bring it into line with the ('Humanist') fashions of their age. But in S Pius V, a truly great pontiff, we see at its very best the ancient function of the Roman Church as a remora against innovation; as well as an assertion of the principle that the Tradition is not ours to destroy, but to hand on carefully with - as Vatican II actually says - only such changes as grow organically out of what is already there, and are truly necessary. (Among later pontiffs, perhaps Benedict XIV came closest to the instincts of S Pius V.)
If S Pius V had been a B Paul VI, he would have confirmed and extended the papal permission for the use of the Quignon breviary; he would have encouraged diocesan bishops to forge ahead with their own 'inculturations'. He did nothing of the sort; he did the opposite. Perhaps the only faint resemblance to the events of the 1960s is S Pius's somewhat root-and-branch approach to a Calendar which had become overloaded (calendars constantly silt up and then need to be dredged; it's a natural cycle like the successions of ice ages and interglacials)*. But that had the result of revealing old Roman treasures which an excessive Sanctorale had left unchanged in the physical texts while the newer insertions had been preventing their actual use. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was those archaic features themselves that fell victim to an elite in a hurry (during this Advent season, we might particularly remember the demise of the old Excita Sunday collects).
You are entitled to think what you like about the events of the 1960s. I have no power to pop you into my own personal private prison! But please do not go around saying that what B Paul VI did after Vatican II was indistinguishable from S Pius V had done after Trent.
Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment: S Pius V (originally posted February 2014) (liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com) (https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2014/12/s-pius-v-originally-posted-february-2014.html)
. . .
From a comment on another post on the blog:
S. Pius speaks of the Council's requirement to revise the Catechism, Missal, and Breviary. Next, I believe he gives the clue to the interpretation of Quo Primum: "edito jam, Deo ipso annuente, ad populi eruditionem Catechismo, et ad debitas Deo persolvendas laudes Breviario castigato, omnino, ut Breviario Missale responderet, ut congruum est et conveniens (cuм unum in Ecclesia Dei psallendi modum, unum Missae celebrandae ritum esse maxime deceat), necesse jam videbatur, ut, quod reliquum in hac parte esset, de ipso nempe Missali edendo, quam primum cogitaremus." So he's saying we did the Catechism, we did the Breviary, and so that there is congruity between the Divine Office and Mass, now we're doing the Missal.
So perhaps we can go back to Quod a nobis (1568) (link to text--Latin only, here's one in Spanish) to see why and to what ends the Breviary was revised. If the Mass was revised to conform to the Breviary, then maybe we can get some support for the printing-press theory there. Quod a nobis is the bull condemning, among other things, the Quignones breviary. This Bull seems the same as Quo Primum: there are a lot of breviaries out there--he calls out Quignones' work by name and abolishes it--and the desire of the committee of scholars is (as in Quo primum) to restore the "antiqua institutione" or "veteris Breviarii". The scholars did their work, says Pius, and we have a new--the new--Breviary. All others are then abolished other than those approved by the Apostolic See or those claiming 200 years' vintage.
Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment: S Pius V: the BIG MISTAKE, THE UNIVERSAL MYTH (liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com) (https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2015/05/s-pius-v-big-mistake-universal-myth.html)
. . .
Another correspondent writing from the Middle East offers the parallel case of the 1568 docuмent "Quod a Nobis" which introduced the new Roman breviary two years before the new missal. This docuмent contains many expressions similar to "Quo Primum" regarding, for instance, the perpetual force of law, the obligation of use in all places, and the total prohibition of adding or omitting anything.
Our reader then comments: "As you are undoubtedly aware, St. Pius X radically rearranged the ancient Roman Psalter and changed a few lessons for a few days, and provided contracted lessons, among other changes in 1913. Moreover, he forbade the use of the old Psalter. This clearly shows that he was not bound by the prescriptions issued in 'Quod a Nobis' and since these are similar to those of 'Quo Primum,' those must not be binding either.
"I have found using 'Quod a Nobis' more effective because the adherents to 'Quo Primum' argue that it is restricted to the Ordinary (either whole or from the Offertory to Last Gospel), or to the Temporale only (despite evidence in encyclicals like 'Grande Munus' to the contrary). Since the Psalter is the most fundamental part of the breviary, no such statement can be made with regard to 'Quod a Nobis.'" ZE06111422
Pius V's 1570 Bull | EWTN (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/pius-vs-1570-bull-4343)
Perhaps, then, St. Pius X incurred the penalties of Quod a nobis and was therefore a non-pope. :laugh1:To say as you said previous, what one pope binds, another is free to loosen, is to say that the authority of the pope is limited.
As often happens, the exaggeration of Quo primum comes from a reaction, and then an overreaction, to Montini's Prot rewrite of the Mass. People are looking for some simplistic, easy, legalistic way to invalidate it ... except that SVs just say it's as simple as the fact that Montini was no pope.
Continuing my research on this issue, some other relevant information.Dear DecemRationis,
Pius V issued a bull, "Quod a Nobis," regarding his reform or standardization of the breviary. I can't find a translation of the bull, but the following comments appear relevant to "Quo Primum" and Pius V's missal.
(https://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-validity-and-legality-of-mass-of.html?m=1)
Some posts by Father Hunwicke from his blog:
(https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/pius-vs-1570-bull-4343)
Of course, there's a lot of tendentious stuff out there on the Canon of the Mass - Sedes, R & R Trads, Conservative and Liberal Novus Ordites . . . But you can usually smell that out when arguments and issues are pressed. As with everything else, objective sifting and attempts at honesty are required . . . as far as we are able with our biases.
Let the "facts" speak, as always.
To say as you said previous, what one pope binds, another is free to loosen, is to say that the authority of the pope is limited.
This is to say QP of Pope St. Pius V did not have the authority to bind all his successors, which is to say that apparently, Pope St. Pius V attempted to do something which he had no authority to do.
To say as you said previous, what one pope binds, another is free to loosen, is to say that the authority of the pope is limited.
This is to say QP of Pope St. Pius V did not have the authority to bind all his successors, which is to say that apparently, Pope St. Pius V attempted to do something which he had no authority to do.
This is what you are saying.
To paraphrase Fr. Wathen; 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.
All this is to say it has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that "it's as simple as the fact that Montini was no pope."
Your paradigm relies upon the a faulty legal analysis to explain why Montini had no authority to change the Mass, because you refuse to accept the fact that Popes are protected by the Holy Spirit from vitiating (damaging) the Sacred Liturgy. Because Montini wrecked the Mass, that's a clear indication of the fact that Montini lacked said protection, i.e. that he was not the pope.You did not, because you cannot prove this, because it's not faulty in the least. I mean what the heck, you even agree that the popes' authority is limited.
You did not, because you cannot prove this, because it's not faulty in the least. I mean what the heck, you even agree that the popes' authority is limited.
Dear DecemRationis,
What is the difference between The Breviary and the Canon of the Mass?
So the Pope's authority is unlimited and he can change Divine Law?
You don't even realize the inherent contradiction due to your self-serving agenda.
If Pope St. Pius V can bind Pope St. Pius X, then the authority of Pope St. Pius X is "limited".
If Pope St. Pius V cannot bind Pope St. Pius X, then the authority of Pope St. Pius V is "limited".
You can't have it both ways.
Fr. Wathen did not reprimand priests who included St. Joseph in the Canon. Fr. Wathen was ordained in 1958 and presumably used the 1955 Missal when he was ordained, for his first Mass. I only served Mass for Fr. Wathen perhaps half a dozen times and cannot recall if he said the Mass with St. Joseph in the Canon.
Fr. Wathen's references to Quo Primum are in the context of the the New Mass, and the bastardization of the Latin Mass, especially the words of consecration. It is arguable that the words of the New Mass are not spoken in the 1st person, but the 3rd person, "Christ said, this is my body..." When I attended the New Mass in my teen years it seems as though the NO priests changed person quite often during the New Mass.
So the Pope's authority is unlimited and he can change Divine Law?Are you deef?
You don't even realize the inherent contradiction due to your self-serving agenda.
If Pope St. Pius V can bind Pope St. Pius X, then the authority of Pope St. Pius X is "limited".
If Pope St. Pius V cannot bind Pope St. Pius X, then the authority of Pope St. Pius V is "limited".
You can't have it both ways.
Right.
The authority of the Pope is of course bound by divine law.
The rite of the Mass, including the prayers in the Canon, is not a matter of divine law. What is a matter of divine law is the form of the sacrament, given us in specie by Christ and contained in the inerrant Gospels.
Did Pope St. Pius V have the authority to bind the Roman Church to that Mass forever or not?
No, he did not have the authority to bind future popes from modifying the rite of the Mass.
Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother
and Teacher of the other churches, andlet Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula thanthat of this Missal published by Us.This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all theprovinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be theysecular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapelswithout a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately inaccord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even bythose which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, oreven if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to themby any other manner whatsoever.
Then you are saying that Pope St. Pius V did not have the authority to bind the Roman Church at all, why did he even bother? You are saying that Pope St. Pius V attempted to do something which he had no authority to do. Most of Quo Primum should, as it is below, be crossed out. That is what you're saying.
Then you are saying that Pope St. Pius V did not have the authority to bind the Roman Church at all, why did he even bother? You are saying that Pope St. Pius V attempted to do something which he had no authority to do. Most of Quo Primum should, as it is below, be crossed out. That is what you're saying.
If Pope St. Pius V can bind Pope St. Pius X, then the authority of Pope St. Pius X is "limited".We can't fully use human logic to describe the papacy because it is a spiritual mystery. And popes are not simply kings, but also representative of Christ. Thus, in certain areas, popes can "bind" future popes, because when the pope acts according to the Holy Ghost, then God is making a decision. Since God does not change, then certain decisions cannot be changed in the future. God cannot deceive, nor contradict Himself, so certain papal actions are fixed, forever, because to change it in the future would admit God can err.
If Pope St. Pius V cannot bind Pope St. Pius X, then the authority of Pope St. Pius V is "limited".
No, he did not have the authority to bind future popes from modifying the rite of the Mass.Yes, he did. Because his actions are Christ's actions.
The authority of the Pope is of course bound by divine law.The Pope is also bound by Scripture and Tradition. And much of what is in the Canon comes from these 2 areas. If you read the book "How Christ said the First Mass" (find it on archive.org), it goes into excruciating detail, about how most of the Mass is a continuation of the Israelite ceremonies. Since God created the religion of the Old Testament DIRECTLY, and gave it to the Jєωs, this liturgy is of Divine origin. As Christ said, "I came not to destroy but to fulfill." The Catholic Mass is the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifice. The Old Law was not destroyed but perfected. The % of the liturgy which came from the Old Testament is very, very high.
The rite of the Mass, including the prayers in the Canon, is not a matter of divine law.
Stubborn - of course Pius V bound the Roman Church to follow his law during his reign, and had the supreme jurisdiction to do so. He was responsible for the government of the Church during his reign in the 16th century, and he did what he thought should be done with his authority. His authority didn't reach to, or bind, what Pius X did and thought best for the Church liturgically or in its office of prayer in the early 20th century.The problem is, it is because by him binding the whole Roman Church to that liturgy forever, that [by extension] popes are bound.
What is the problem here?
Quo Primum: Could a Pope Change It?
QUESTION: During a recent argument with a Novus Ordo friend, she told me that (according to her priest) popes can change whatever they want, as long as it is not dogmatic. We were discussing Quo Primum. I told her that it was forever, but she said that even if the pope said forever another pope can change it. What would you say to that?
REPLY: On this point, shes right.
A (true) pope is the supreme legislator for ecclesiastical law and has the power to change ecclesiastical laws enacted by his predecessors. Quo Primum was an ecclesiastical law, and a true pope did indeed have the power to abrogate it or modify any of its provisions.
The forever clause was merely a type of legal boilerplate common in all sorts of papal legislation.
In the 1960s faithful Catholics seized upon this language as a justification for disobeying the new liturgical legislation while simultaneously recognizing Paul VI as a true pope. This was unfortunate, because anyone who knows a bit about canon law can refute the argument very easily.
The argument also obscures the real reason for adhering to the traditional Mass and rejecting the New Mass: The old rite is Catholic. The new rite is evil, inimical to Catholic doctrine (on the Real Presence, the priesthood, the nature of the Mass, etc.) and a sacrilege.
Fr. Cekada addressed the Quo Primum argument in one of his blog posts (https://www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum/):Here again, Fr. Cekada falls back on the only thing he can - Quo Primum does not mean what it says. That Pope St. Pius V worded Quo Primum to only sound like it invoked the full force of papal authority. This deserves a great big :facepalm:.
In the 1960s faithful Catholics seized upon this language as a justification for disobeying the new liturgical legislation while simultaneously recognizing Paul VI as a true pope. This was unfortunate, because anyone who knows a bit about canon law can refute the argument very easily.
Fr. Cekada addressed the Quo Primum argument in one of his blog posts (https://www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum/):
Yes, I think it's a mechanism used by R&R mostly to justify rejecting the changes made by Montini given that they're unwilling to even consider the possibility of SV.SV has nothing to do with it - it only has everything to do with it to sedes.
How can he bind the Church forever and not also bind popes?
We can't fully use human logic to describe the papacy because it is a spiritual mystery. And popes are not simply kings, but also representative of Christ. Thus, in certain areas, popes can "bind" future popes, because when the pope acts according to the Holy Ghost, then God is making a decision. Since God does not change, then certain decisions cannot be changed in the future. God cannot deceive, nor contradict Himself, so certain papal actions are fixed, forever, because to change it in the future would admit God can err.
Simply because an equal cannot bind an equal. Can the Bishop of New York bind the Bishop of Los Angeles?Pope St. Pius X was bound to that Liturgy - because his authority was limited.
If you're claiming he had that authority, then you're putting limits on the authority of Pope St. Pius X. St. Pius V also made the same decisions about the Breviary, and yet St. Pius X didn't feel as though he was bound by that.
Pope St. Pius X was bound to that Liturgy - because his authority was limited.
You're claiming Pope St. Pius V did not have the authority to bind the whole Roman Church forever. Which is contrary to Quo Primum.
St. Pius X disagrees with you since he changed the Breviary, and as has been pointed out, but is being filtered out by your brain due to cognitive dissonance, St. Pius V used the same language to bind the Breviary "forever" also.The Breviary is not the Roman Liturgy. Not even close. You are faced with another conundrum when it comes to the Liturgy - best for you to ignore it, as usual.
The Breviary is not the Roman Liturgy. Not even close. You are faced with another conundrum when it comes to the Liturgy - best for you to ignore it, as usual.
What you are saying is that Quo Primum either does not mean what it says, or you're saying that or the law he established expired with his reign.
The Breviary is not the Roman Liturgy..
The Breviary was not substantially changed, only the details were, so Pius X did not deviate from Pius V. And Pius V did not deviate from his predecessors.
It’s a false battle to pit Tradition vs Papal Authority because they are not enemies. Quo Primum simply codified the mass as being part of Tradition, as St Pius V says that the essence of the rite goes all the way back to the early church and Pope St Gregory the Great.
No Pope can substantially change the canon. Does St Joseph’s addition substantially change the canon? No. But does it harm the idea of Tradition? Yes.
So what? You're basing your argument on Quo Primum and arguing that a Pope can bind another Pope when he uses terms like "forever".You have a major reading comprehension problem. I said: "What you are saying is that Quo Primum either does not mean what it says" which includes the words: "in perpetuity" and "forever." Do you know what those words mean?
So, when St. Pius V said the same thing in Quod a nobis, either he "does not mean what it says, or you're saying that the law he established expired with his reign".Go ahead and post Pope St. Pius V's Papal Bull Quod a nobis, until you post it, there is no sense in referencing it because nobody knows what it says or what's in it - nor does it matter to anyone except those who think he had no intention of binding the Roman Church to the Roman Liturgy. May as well forget Quo Primum even exists - along with the Roman Missal of Pope Pius V while you're at it!
Of course, no one says it expired with his reign, but rather that it expired when another Pope came along and issued new directives.
You're making bogus distinctions now between Liturgy and Breviary because you're determined to continue living in your perpetual state of self-contradiction. Besides, the Breviary is Church Liturgy, and the distinction you're after is between the Mass and other Liturgy.
The Breviary was not substantially changed, only the details were, so Pius X did not deviate from Pius V. And Pius V did not deviate from his predecessors.I agree.
It’s a false battle to pit Tradition vs Papal Authority because they are not enemies. Quo Primum simply codified the mass as being part of Tradition, as St Pius V says that the essence of the rite goes all the way back to the early church and Pope St Gregory the Great.
No Pope can substantially change the canon. Does St Joseph’s addition substantially change the canon? No. But does it harm the idea of Tradition? Yes. Is such a harm allowable? Probably, because it’s minor. Is it a prudential act? I’m sure, not.
Could a pope get rid of the entire Communicantes prayer? I’m not sure.
What I do know is that any revision to the liturgy would have to abrogate or revise Quo Primum, and that didn’t happen. So the addition of St Joseph isn’t a fully legal change.
As Fr. Wathen says: "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.".
Stubborn, that’s not what Lad is saying. You 2 constantly talk past each other.No Pax, the point is that Lad says no pope can bind his successors, this is the same thinking NOers have as relates to the NOM and is apparently the same thinking sedes have. The difference is that the sedes have exceptions, which are are limited to defined dogmas and Divine Law - but not the Roman Liturgy - PPV bound the Church forever, but not his successors. I ask, how does that work?
Even if Quo Primum had never happened, the new mass wouldn’t be valid because of the substantial changes to the consecration prayers (which were already defined by Florence).
Protecting it from what? Of course Quo Primum binds anybody below the pope from tampering with the missal, but it doesn't bind a subsequent pope. But obviously the liturgy doesn't need to be protected from the pope, since the pope is the one doing the protecting, not the harming.Protecting it from what happened when popes ignored the Law that protected it.
No Pax, the point is that Lad says no pope can bind his successors, this is the same thinking NOers have as relates to the NOM and is apparently the same thinking sedes have. The difference is that the sedes have exceptions, which are are limited to defined dogmas and Divine Law - but not the Roman Liturgy - PPV bound the Church forever, but not his successors. I ask, how does that work?
Then DR says that PPV did not have the authority to bind the Church, apparently because he did not have the authority to bind his successors.
It has become a matter of them going to great lengths so as to prevent PPV from having the authority of binding his successors to the Roman Liturgy, thereby making PPV incapable or having no authority to bind anyone one at all in the process.
No Pax, the point is that Lad says no pope can bind his successors,
The Breviary is not the Roman Liturgy. Not even close. You are faced with another conundrum when it comes to the Liturgy - best for you to ignore it, as usual.Wow! You are so wrong that my eyes weep for you!
The Breviary was not substantially changed, only the details were, so Pius X did not deviate from Pius V. And Pius V did not deviate from his predecessors.Not true! The Breviary changes of St. Pius X were every bit as revolutionary as the Breviary changes made under Montini. A complete reording of the Psalter was introduced under Pius X ostensibly to reduced the burden on secular priests. This reform maintained a one-week cycle, whereas Montini's reform introduced a 4-week Psalter cycle. Nevertheless, as one who prays the Office is its pre-Pius X form, I can tell you that the Office of Pius X (and, later, the reformed Office of John XIII) is clearly the Roman liturgy in that the basic form is retained but the Office of Pius X has different content in those forms from what came before and dome content has been wholly excised.
It’s a false battle to pit Tradition vs Papal Authority because they are not enemies. Quo Primum simply codified the mass as being part of Tradition, as St Pius V says that the essence of the rite goes all the way back to the early church and Pope St Gregory the Great.
No Pope can substantially change the canon. Does St Joseph’s addition substantially change the canon? No. But does it harm the idea of Tradition? Yes. Is such a harm allowable? Probably, because it’s minor. Is it a prudential act? I’m sure, not.
Could a pope get rid of the entire Communicantes prayer? I’m not sure.
What I do know is that any revision to the liturgy would have to abrogate or revise Quo Primum, and that didn’t happen. So the addition of St Joseph isn’t a fully legal change.
Stubborn, that’s not what Lad is saying. You 2 constantly talk past each other.There are no changes in the consecration prayers of the 1969 typical edition of the Roman Missal that cannot be found in the consecration prayers of other valid liturgical Rites.
Even if Quo Primum had never happened, the new mass wouldn’t be valid because of the substantial changes to the consecration prayers (which were already defined by Florence).
There are no changes in the consecration prayers of the 1969 typical edition of the Roman Missal that cannot be found in the consecration prayers of other valid liturgical Rites.
The problem with the New Mass is its archaeologism and its novel, lab-created orations that are either substanial edits of older prayers or prayers of entirely new composition. Add to this a new calendar and a novel 3-year/2-year lectionary cycle and what one has is a Frankenstein liturgy.
The validity problem with the reforms of Montini really centre upon the form for the consecration of bishops. This is doubtfully valid, some may argue invalid, and has a down-stream effect on other sacraments.
The answer is, he can and he can't. It depends. You are arguing more for "can't" and Lad is arguing more for "can", but you're both wrong. The answer remains - it depends.I agree with the answer, but in this case, PPV used his supreme authority to bind the Church forever. If you can figure out how that is possible without also binding all of his successors please do tell.
Wow! You are so wrong that my eyes weep for you!Either post Pope St. Pius V's Papal Bull Quod a nobis or don't, but don't go on pretending that you know what it says until someone posts it here.
The Roman Breviary is indeed the Roman liturgy, as too are the rites of the Roman Missal, the Roman Ritual, the Roman Pontifical. The contents of the Roman Gradual, the Roman Epistulary, the Roman Evangelary, and the Roman Martyrology also pertain to the Roman liturgy.
Where the Breviary is concerned, it constitutes the greater part of the daily liturgical action of the Church. In fact, the Mass id dependent upon the liturgical hours of the Breviary as to the time of morning that Mass is to be offered. In some seasons, Mass properly follows Terce, in Lent it follows Vespers transferred to morning, and at other time Mass is connected to Matins or Lauds.
That's not what I said.Then because it's the law in perpetuity, it's binding forever. Why is this so clear, yet so difficult to accept?
I said it is binding as long as it is law, and under his reign. Lad added what was implied in my response: it binds until subsequent legislation by a pope unbinds it.
I would also call out the removal of the Catholic Offertory and its replacement by a тαℓмυdic blessing / table prayer.Yes, indeed!!!
I agree with the answer, but in this case, PPV used his supreme authority to bind the Church forever. If you can figure out how that is possible without also binding all of his successors please do tell.
Pax Vobis: The Breviary was not substantially changed, only the details were, so Pius X did not deviate from Pius V.
ElwinRansom1970: Nevertheless, as one who prays the Office is its pre-Pius X form, I can tell you that the Office of Pius X (and, later, the reformed Office of John XIII) is clearly the Roman liturgy in that the basic form is retained...Then we agree.
There are no changes in the consecration prayers of the 1969 typical edition of the Roman Missal that cannot be found in the consecration prayers of other valid liturgical Rites.Totally irrelevant and wrong. Each rite must be viewed independently. Pius XII CLEARLY defined the consecration formula for the Latin rite and Paul6 went directly against it (without revoking Pius XII's rule, or changing it). Neither did Paul6 argue that the validity was based on eastern rites. He made no argument; He just changed the consecration....which, is maybe the ONLY thing that we know is of Divine origin.
The problem with the New Mass is its archaeologism and its novel, lab-created orations that are either substanial edits of older prayers or prayers of entirely new composition. Add to this a new calendar and a novel 3-year/2-year lectionary cycle and what one has is a Frankenstein liturgy.No, it goes quite beyond this.
Then we agree.The Pius X Office retains the structure of Hymns, Pslalter, Chapter, Responsory for the hours, but the arrangement of Psalms is wholly different. Things really get weird with the John XXIII Office where Pater nosters, suffrages, Marian anthems disappear from Lauds, the Athanasian Creed vanishes, and commemorations are eliminated from the collects at Matins, Lauds and Vespers. Roman? Yes. But not ROMAN Roman. Kind of lazy like the Quiñones Breviary of the 16th century.
The Pius X Office retains the structure of Hymns, Pslalter, Chapter, Responsory for the hours, but the arrangement of Psalms is wholly different.That's fine. But is the pre-Pius X Office substantially different from the Pius X changes? No.
Each rite must be viewed independently.I have a doctorate in liturgy--the Tridentine liturgy. What you say is not how the Catholic Church has ever conducted the sacred science of liturgiology since the discipline emerged in theology during the 16th century.
That's fine. But is the pre-Pius X Office substantially different from the Pius X changes? No.We must have different understandings of what constitutes "substantial".
I have a doctorate in liturgy--the Tridentine liturgy. What you say in not how the Catholic Church has ever conducted the sacred science of liturgiology since the discipline emerged in theology during the 16th century.Ok. So what was the point of Pius XII declaring (specifically for the Latin Rite) that the form of [insert example] is [this]? If you can mix-n-match rites, then the rites become meaningless?
We must have different understandings of what constitutes "substantial".The complete Rosary is 15 decades. The shortened version is 5 decades. Does the shortened version change the substance of the IDEA/purpose of the Rosary? No.
Ok. So what was the point of Pius XII declaring (specifically for the Latin Rite) that the form of [insert example] is [this]? If you can mix-n-match rites, then the rites become meaningless?This is not a matter of mixing Rites. It is a matter of comparing in order
It is a matter of comparing in order to establish what is universally common and thereby discern what is needed for validity.No. If the pope has ALREADY established what is needed (and much more, what is required) for validity, for a particular rite, then to deviate from this, makes it positively doubtful (at best) or outright invalid (at worst).
I have a doctorate in liturgy--the Tridentine liturgy. What you say is not how the Catholic Church has ever conducted the sacred science of liturgiology since the discipline emerged in theology during the 16th century.Dear ElwinRansom1970,
I have a doctorate in liturgy--the Tridentine liturgy. What you say is not how the Catholic Church has ever conducted the sacred science of liturgiology since the discipline emerged in theology during the 16th century.Not to derail the thread, but is it still possible to receive a degree in the Tridentine liturgy, or really any non-Novus Ordo traditional catholic degree?
Not to derail the thread, but is it still possible to receive a degree in the Tridentine liturgy, or really any non-Novus Ordo traditional catholic degree?Yes, it is possible. Graduate degrees in sacred sciences, especially doctorates, are very much autodidactic with seminars and tutorials thrown in. Keep in mind, there is a BIG difference between Sr. Susan Suitpants with her M.A. in Pastoral Studies from the Chicago Theological Union and who serves as Pastoral Associate at Singing in the New Spirit Catholic Christian Community versus someone who has earned a D.Phil. or D.Theo. or S.T.D. from a rigourous pontifical or ancient faculty, e.g., Blackfriars Hall, Oxford (where I did not go and could only dream to hold a degree from -- way above my intellectual abilities).
It's been splained to you numerous times. You've yet to explain how he also bound the Church forever regarding the Breviary and yet St. Pius X saw fit to change it. You ignorantly claimed that the Breviary was not the Church's Liturgy.You've explained nothing, all you do is the same thing you are well known for, avoiding answering the question and cry insults in your feeble attempt to distract away from you not answering the question.
You've explained nothing, all you do is the same thing you are well known for, avoiding answering the question and cry insults in your feeble attempt to distract away from you not answering the question.
How can Pope St. Pius V officially bind the whole Roman Church forever to a law, or anything for that matter, and at the same time *not* bind his successors?
Either he also bound his successors, or he had no authority to bind the Church.
See, even the Dimonds understood that in binding the whole Roman Church to the Roman Liturgy forever, all of his successors were bound.
What I find amazing is you and the other argue against this, effectively rendering the Missal of Pius V and Quo Primum to no purpose whatsoever.
Sedes (for the most part) go to the opposite extreme and declare everything invalid, while not concentrating on the licitness issue.
Fr Wathen said that the new mass was certainly illicit (i.e. schismatic), but only the future Church could decide validity.
Continuing the strawman, since SVs also realize that only the Church can "decide" validity, in the sense where it's binding on consciences. In the meanwhile, we're left to deal with the question of OUR OWN consciences until that happens. Of course, what is this "future Church" if you're not an SV? We have the PRESENT CHURCH declaring their Sacraments to be valid ... according to R&R at least. So why does this "future Church" have more authority than the current Church?Don't you know? It's the conciliar non-Church Church headed by the anti-Catholic Catholic Pope, because words don't have meaning any more.
Just buckets of hogwash everywhere.
I find your lack of intellectual capacity to be astounding, as I'm sure do most others on this thread.Of course, this is what you always resort to when you know you're wrong and on that account cannot answer the question.
1) Canonists all agree that an equal cannot bind an equal. God alone can bind a Pope, i.e. through Divine Law and natural law.No they don't. Use Quo Primum, quote from Quo Primum to demonstrate how PPV bound the Church but not his successors.
2) St. Pius V used the same language in Quod a nobis regarding the Breviary, and yet St. Pius X saw fit to change the Breviary. So St. Pius X disagrees with you.Repeat this is often as you like, but he did not use the same language because the law of Quo Primum is to protect the Roman Liturgy, not the Breviary.
And you don't even understand that the Breviary is in fact Catholic Liturgy.
Really, I think Fr Hesse's view was a good-faith effort to explain the crisis. (Even though, now that Benedict XVI said that the new rite was part of the Latin rite, this means Fr Hesse's view was factually wrong. But his attempt, at the time, was the only logical solution....I'm not condoning his new rite ordination...I'm just saying, he's one of the few people who rightfully saw that the new rites were, on paper, invalid.)Dear Pax Vobis,
Classic R&R/+ABL erred in trying to rectify/argue the validity of the new rite, and (practically speaking) ignored the licit/schismatic problem.
Sedes (for the most part) go to the opposite extreme and declare everything invalid, while not concentrating on the licitness issue.
Fr Wathen said that the new mass was certainly illicit (i.e. schismatic), but only the future Church could decide validity.
The error that +ABL/post-ABL sspx made, is to not take a stand on the illicitness of the new rites. Practically speaking, even if you argue the new rites *could be* valid, you must advise others to stay away, due to their being illegal. Canon Law tells us to treat them as invalid. This is the proper middle road.
Had +ABL taken such a stand, then sedevacantism may not have gone too far in the other direction (not theologically extreme, but humanly speaking, where they could not work with the sspx to build Tradition), as a reaction to the sspx's *apparent* lukewarmism. And +Fellay wouldn've never had the opportunity to take the sspx down the 'slippery slope' to which the over-concentration on validity led...which is the modern-day, new-sspx indult.
On the whole, sedevacantism did go extreme (in my opinion) but not in the realm of theology or doctrine, but only in human terms. But we're all human, and especially in a crisis, such can be expected and not condemned. +ABL went extreme too, but again, I can hardly blame his motives. +Fellay, on the other hand...
Repeat this is often as you like, but he did not use the same language because the law of Quo Primum is to protect the Roman Liturgy, not the Breviary.
Either way, you will keep parroting the same thing ...
It doesn't get any more absurd, you claiming that I "keep parroting the same thing" while you again repeat the absurdity that the Breviary is not "the Roman Liturgy" ... despite having been corrected on this point by numerous posters.You just keep flapping your lips without ever even acknowledging the question at hand - not something you should like being famous for, but it is what it is.
You're the blowhard who just keeps repeating your gratuitous assertion, whereas I'm repeating the logic ... because your thick skull is impervious to reason. You've already decided your conclusion and, in bad will, you refuse to think about is reasonably.
Your false distinction between Liturgy and the Breviary is utterly meaningless, since your primary argument is whether the Pope can say that his decision lasts "forever" and not bind a Pope. Evidently St. Pius X thinks that he is not bound by one such "forever" pronouncement.
Yet another strawman against sedevacantism.It was not meant as an attack but an observation. The point being, both the sspx (and and new) and most sedes put too much emphasis on the validity question, when analyzing the new mass, instead of on the legality. The former question can only be decided by the Church; the legal questions can readily be decided and applied in real life.
Could you point out the docuмent in which Father Ratzinger proves Dom Hesse wrong?Fr Hesse argued that the novus ordo could be valid because it was a new rite, not part of the Latin rite. Thus, it didn’t have to abide by the clear sacramental decrees by Pius XII and Florence, etc. He said if it was a new rite, then we’d have to compare its sacraments against the Eastern and Orthodox rites, many which are still valid.
Fr Hesse argued that the novus ordo could be valid because it was a new rite, not part of the Latin rite. Thus, it didn’t have to abide by the clear sacramental decrees by Pius XII and Florence, etc. He said if it was a new rite, then we’d have to compare its sacraments against the Eastern and Orthodox rites, many which are still valid.
But Benedict’s 2005 motu proprio, which expanded the indult Latin mass, clearly states that the new mass/rites are the ‘ordinary form’ and part of the Latin Rite. Thus, Fr Hesse’s (RIP) arguments were proven wrong.
So we can definitively say that the new rites are 100% schismatic, illegal and sinful.
Not sure if it was intended or not, or a big mistake by new-rome, but Benedict’s 2005 motu proprio was a HUGE victory for all Trads, in the legal sense. Benedict also said Quo Primum was never abrogated, still law, and the True Mass had never been outlawed. Total win for Trads.
The expansion of the indult TLM was good for novus ordo people but has been bad for lukewarm Trads. But the legal facts admitted in this docuмent were/are historical.
Before getting into this further, where does the Magisterium say that a pope can create a new rite but he can't alter or change an existing rite?Actually, Quo Primum lays out the rules quite clearly.
Actually, Quo Primum lays out the rules quite clearly.
1. The latin rite of St Pius V can be used in perpetuity (allowance/permission to use).
2. No one can change, alter or add anything to the rite (no changes to the rite at all).
3. ONLY this rite can be used. No other rites are allowed (strict use of this rite is commanded).
**Exceptions exist for ancient rites (i.e. Benedictine/Dominican) within the latin rite. Except for a few prayers, these rites are nearly identical to the latin rite.
The loophole in Quo Primum, is that it never forbid a future pope from creating a new rite (which V2 did); but it does forbid it's use, in 2 ways - it says only the latin rite can be used and the latin rite MUST be used. So it commanded such from 2 different angles, to make it clear. But the Modernists found the loophole which allowed them to create a new rite (which is technically legal), and then they used half-truths, lies, manipulation and pressure from bishops to push people into accepting this illegal rite.
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
You just keep flapping your lips without ever even acknowledging the question at hand - not something you should like being famous for, but it is what it is.
Pius XII said this in his encyclical about the Mass, Mediator Dei:
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
I've been addressing the question at hand, which is whether the language of Quo Primum binds popes or just everyone else except popes. Obviously the answer is everyone else except popes, since ...When it comes to the Liturgy of the Roman Rite, really the only legal leg that trads have to stand on is the fact that Quo Primum is binding in perpetuity. Because we are bound, the pope has to be bound - there is no way out of this, there simply isn't.
1) authorities cannot bind their equals
2) St. Pius V used the same language for the Breviary
Your only rebuttal is to ignore #1 and to claim that the Breviary is not Liturgy, and so "forever" means forever where it comes to the Mass and "forever" doesn't mean forever where it comes to the Breviary (which, BTW, is also Liturgy).
When it comes to the Liturgy of the Roman Rite, really the only legal leg that trads have to stand on is the fact that Quo Primum is binding in perpetuity. Because we are bound, the pope has to be bound - there is no way out of this, there simply isn't.Yes, as it stands, since none of the V2 "popes" changed Quo Primum, then they have to abide by it. It's also a very important point that neither Paul6 or any other V2 "pope" made the new mass obligatory, or binding under pain of sin. Because they knew that Quo Primum forbid it. And Benedict XVI confirmed this in his motu where he said that QP "was never abrogated (i.e. ended)" and thus the True Rite/Mass "was always allowed."
Had PPV invented his own new rite, then maybe his successors would not be bound. But that's not the case here.Any pope can create his own rite (in theory), just like they can create new missals. The point is, the new rite or missal must be Apostolic/Traditional and valid (i.e. the essence of the rite must be catholic).
Here the liturgy was restored to the original from the time all the way back to the Apostles.Yes and no. St Pius V restored *some* things back to the time of St Gregory the Great (600s) but he also accepted a great many things which were added/created during the 1,000 year period of Christendom, from the 500s to the 1,500s. Example: St Thomas Aquinas' hymns used at Benediction, the many Litanies, etc.
The purpose of binding us was for the sake of unity, so that all the "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."Yes, there were so many things added during this 1,000 years that it got out of hand. So St Pius V was just saying, "Ok, everyone, the last 1,000 years have been very creative and beautiful. Some of you have gone a little overboard with the additions, and the masses in England vs France are just too different. We are losing Catholic unity. So i'm going to pick the best ideas and this new missal is the one everyone should use from now on. No more changes."
As for the Breviary, either post "the language" or forget it, it means nothing. You do not know what it says any more than anyone else here - so stop pretending that you do.
the 1568 docuмent "Quod a Nobis" which introduced the new Roman breviary two years before the new missal. This docuмent contains many expressions similar to "Quo Primum" regarding, for instance, the perpetual force of law, the obligation of use in all places, and the total prohibition of adding or omitting anything.
Yes, as it stands, since none of the V2 "popes" changed Quo Primum, then they have to abide by it. It's also a very important point that neither Paul6 or any other V2 "pope" made the new mass obligatory, or binding under pain of sin. Because they knew that Quo Primum forbid it. And Benedict XVI confirmed this in his motu where he said that QP "was never abrogated (i.e. ended)" and thus the True Rite/Mass "was always allowed."Well said!
Any pope can create his own rite (in theory), just like they can create new missals. The point is, the new rite or missal must be Apostolic/Traditional and valid (i.e. the essence of the rite must be catholic).
Each catholic rite is essentially the same, because they all originated from the Apostles, who learned from Christ. So if a pope were to create a new rite, there wouldn't be much of a difference in substance, only in minor things.
Yes and no. St Pius V restored *some* things back to the time of St Gregory the Great (600s) but he also accepted a great many things which were added/created during the 1,000 year period of Christendom, from the 500s to the 1,500s. Example: St Thomas Aquinas' hymns used at Benediction, the many Litanies, etc.
The natural evolution of the liturgy of these 1,000 years was a necessary and beautiful part of the Holy Ghost's perfection of the rite. But the things added were not essential, only minor.
Yes, there were so many things added during this 1,000 years that it got out of hand. So St Pius V was just saying, "Ok, everyone, the last 1,000 years have been very creative and beautiful. Some of you have gone a little overboard with the additions, and the masses in England vs France are just too different. We are losing Catholic unity. So i'm going to pick the best ideas and this new missal is the one everyone should use from now on. No more changes."
I found the same things you found - if there is a copy of the docuмent on line, I'd say that it's well hidden, but if it is going to be referenced, then someone needs to produce the docuмent.
Stubborn,
That's a fair point. Problem is, there is no accessible translation of Quod a nobis, the breviary bull of Pius V. I have quoted, in reply #68, various quotes and claims about the bull, including:
One of the posts I cited has a link to "Quod a nobis" in Latin:
https://books.google.com/books?id=-cXYqusIEx8C&dq=breviarium%20romanum&pg=PP9#v=onepage&q&f=false
That's the best I can find so far.
It would take a lot of work, but perhaps someone who knows Latin can compare the two bulls and give some creditable review of the claim about both bulls having similar language.
Trust, but verify. Fair enough.
Even the "trust" I fear should be taken with a grain of salt, so . . .
As of now, we have claims that may or may not be reliable.
DR
the 1568 docuмent "Quod a Nobis" which introduced the new Roman breviary two years before the new missal.St Pope Pius V introduced the new Breviary and Missal at the command of the Council of Trent. Even Quo Primum states this, and it says something like "Now that the Breviary has been updated, we turned our attention to updating the missal."
but perhaps someone who knows Latin can compare the two bulls and give some creditable review of the claim about both bulls having similar language.Yes, they do have similar language, because it was normal, legal language used at the time (and even is used now, in some cases). The Pope wanted to make clear that these docuмents are unchangeable (in their essential elements). The allowance of minor changes, by future popes, goes without saying. Because minor changes aren't real changes. They don't affect doctrine or the essence of the liturgy.
Yes, as it stands, since none of the V2 "popes" changed Quo Primum, then they have to abide by it.
The allowance of minor changes, by future popes, goes without saying. Because minor changes aren't real changes. They don't affect doctrine or the essence of the liturgy.
Montini explicitly overrode it when he promulgated the NOM. You don't edit "Quo Primum," but you modify it or abrogate it with subsequent legislation. What is this "modifying"? No pope directly modifies a previous pope's docuмent.As Fr. Altenbach said, if you would have listened, heaven forbid: If PPVI was going to abrogate Quo Primum, he would have to make it official using language as clear and strong or stronger than was used in Quo Primum, explicitly abrogating it. What PPVI did was against the law of Quo Primum, it does no matter whether *you* accept that or not. He broke the law of Quo Primum.
Tell the above to Stubborn.No, incidental changes made only by popes certainly occur, what those types of changes don't do, is they do not change the rite.
Montini explicitly overrode it when he promulgated the NOM.He absolutely, positively did not. Nowhere in the docuмent does he abrogate QP and Benedict XVI confirmed this fact.
You don't edit "Quo Primum," but you modify it or abrogate it with subsequent legislation. What is this "modifying"?I meant, using the correct legal term, revise. Quo Primum has been revised over the years, the most recent revisions being the 1962 missal. But QP, as the parent law, still is in force. A revision is the same as a modification.
No pope directly modifies a previous pope's docuмent.Yes, they do. It's happened with QP multiple times. See the intro to the 62 missal, which has language saying this missal is a revision of the previous missal (i.e. 1950s), which is part of the QP "tree" which began with Pope St Pius V. It is made very clear that the 62 missal (and the ones which came before it) are the same as St Pius V's missal, just with minor updates to the calendar.
No, incidental changes made only by popes certainly occur, what those types of changes don't do, is they do not change the rite.Obviously. So the question becomes: does the addition of St Joseph change the rite? Probably not. (but I don't believe this change was done legally, so the question is moot).
In legal docuмents, words like "perpetual" mean the law has no defined end date. It continues to be law unless it is abrogated. It does not mean the law can never be abrogated. For example, consider how no one would argue that "perpetual peace treaties" mean any future wars are illegal. https://blog.oup.com/2017/10/perpetual-peace/Yes, there are legal docuмents where certain words and terms can have certain legalistic meanings other than what the word normally means, and then there are official Church docuмents that are meant to mean what they say, to be understood as they are written outside of a court of law or lawyer's office, where 'in perpetuity' and 'forever' are to be understood literally, to mean what they say by design so that there is no mistaking the message.
Obviously. So the question becomes: does the addition of St Joseph change the rite? Probably not. (but I don't believe this change was done legally, so the question is moot).
The Canon is the anaphora, or eucharistic prayer, for the Roman Rite and its various usages as well the name for the anaphora in other Western Rites (Gallican, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bragan, and Glogolitic Rites). The Canon begins remotely with the Preface Dialogue and Preface, proximately with the Sanctus, and properly with the Te Igitur. Most of the Canon is a fixed narrative said almost entirely sotto voce (the pre-62 Mass has 3 levels of voice, whilst the 62 Mass has only 2 levels). The Roman Canon is the most common form of the anaphora for the Roman Rite. There are (or have been) variations in the text for local usages. And there are proper Communicantes and Hanc igitur for certain holy days. The number of Prefaces have varied in time, being generally fixed with the Missal of Pius V, although additional Prefaces squeezed their way into the back of 19th- and early 20th-century printings, but never into the typical editions. The Canon concludes with the Per ipsum, which was once sung aloud (a practice revived with the 65 Missal), but has been properly offered quietly with the rest of the Canon for several recent centuries. The Canon itself probably once had a different ordering of the prayers, but whatever that may have been is lost in the very earliest centuries of the Roman Church. What we have in ordering of prayers and saints mentioned obtains at least to the 4th century with final "tweaks" ending by the 7th century.Dear ElwinRansom1970,
Dear ElwinRansom1970,Here is a place to begin:
Thank you very much for your explanation. Please explain the relationship between "liturgy" and "discipline". Could you refer us to a relevant docuмent or book? Thank you for your help!
I have seen the readings of the Mass, liturgy, and I don't like them. The thou, thee, thy went to you, you, you and your. It decreases God to you. I am not happy with it. St. Joseph is just a way a putting a toe in the door for more changes. I would have been happy to see at least the addition Holy ghost the Paraclete to the Divine Graces, and adding Blessed be His Most Precious Blood. They added St. Joseph there, but not the Holy Ghost?Oh, they did! Once a NO enthusiast tried to convince me that the Eucharistic Prayers II-IV were improvements on the Roman Canon precisely because they mentioned the Holy Ghost.
Oh, they did! Once a NO enthusiast tried to convince me that the Eucharistic Prayers II-IV were improvements on the Roman Canon precisely because they mentioned the Holy Ghost.The imposition of epicleses in the new anaphoræ created after Vatican II was part of a conscious Byzantinisation of the Roman liturgy. Many Catholic liturgists of the time were influenced by the liturgical theology Orthodox Fr. Alexander Schmemann, and believed the Roman canon to be deficient because it lacked an epiclesis. This element was introduced into the newly-composed anaphoræ. When one recognises what a bizarre jumble of Byzantine and Lutheran elements make-up the Novus Ordo and how it has an significantly Jansenist inspiration, it is imposdible ever again to view the liturgy introduced by Montini with anything other than contempt.
. . . the Novus Ordo and how it has an significantly Jansenist inspiration . . .
On what basis do you call the NO "Jansenist"?The inspiration, methods, and form of the liturigcal rites of Paul VI align with the liturgical programme of the 18th-century Jansenists. Hopefully I can give more detail later, but, for now, look at the liturgical reforms enacted during the 1700s in Austria, in Tuscany, in Perugia, and what was desired by Bishop Hénri Grégoire, the primate of the French Constitutional Church. Above all, look at the Synod of Pistoia and what it planned. Pistoia was formally condemned by the Church.
The inspiration, methods, and form of the liturigcal rites of Paul VI align with the liturgical programme of the 18th-century Jansenists. Hopefully I can give more detail later, but, for now, look at the liturgical reforms enacted during the 1700s in Austria, in Tuscany, in Perugia, and what was desired by Bishop Hénri Grégoire, the primate of the French Constitutional Church. Above all, look at the Synod of Pistoia and what it planned. Pistoia was formally condemned by the Church.
Thanks for your response.Most welcome.
I
At this time only Angelus has given direct quotes concerning the immutability of the Canon in replies ns. 29 and 44. There are no quotes supporting the possibility of any changes to the Canon.
Yes, there are legal docuмents where certain words and terms can have certain legalistic meanings other than what the word normally means, and then there are official Church docuмents that are meant to mean what they say, to be understood as they are written outside of a court of law or lawyer's office, where 'in perpetuity' and 'forever' are to be understood literally, to mean what they say by design so that there is no mistaking the message.
Personally, I do not believe that Quo Primum could ever be legally abrogated because of what it pertains to, the eternal sacrifice. I believe PPV had that authority to bind even popes, and knew why he bound us forever, and knew well that he had the authority to do it. Many other trad priests believe(d) the same, Fr. Altenbach is on record preaching it....https://tinyurl.com/mrxc4k5n (https://tinyurl.com/mrxc4k5n) Heck, even the Dimonds believed it, not sure but they probably don't believe it any more, but that's only because there's a whole lot more to sedeism than just a vacant chair.
10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this docuмent of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We] enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
https://www.catechism.cc/articles/Pope-Paul-IV-Ex-Apostolatus-Officio.htm
Father Cekada at one point made a solid point about the terms like "in perpetuity", where it simply means that it's a permanent order, would remain in force even after the pope's death (unless abrogated), vs. some temporary or time-bound edict.Dear Ladislaus,
"in perpetuum" in Latin just means permanent or lasting, and not the same as the Latin "in saecula saeculorum".
General principle of all law is that an equal cannot bind an equal, so one pope cannot bind future popes, except where it's a matter of Divine or natural law, but then it's not the pope doing the binding, but God Himself.
Both I and Ladislaus have addressed the contention that quotes must be provided for indicating the Canon can be changed. The pope has a "total fullness of supreme power" (Pastor Aeturnus) and if you want to impose limitations on that power the burden is on you to provide the authority for saying the Pope can't change the Canon.Dear DecemRationis,
For example, I have provided quotes regarding the power of the Church and pope to declare "new rites" and alter existing rites (the Council of Trent and Pius XXII in Mediator Dei) and I, contrary to you, have identified authority or proof of when that power is limited: the form of the sacraments cannot be changed, particularly those given by Christ in specie - not by the Church, the pope or anyone.
All we've seen about the "Canon can't be changed" is a quotation from the lesser authority of the CE, which merely indicates that the Canon is pure, and I believe notes that its form had been fixed for quite awhile. Those are factual observations about the Canon contained in the TLM, and not limitations on papal power - as if the CE could be a authoritative source to do such a thing. The CE is merely a reference, and in turn points to true authority that it describes . . . so where is it?
Where is the authority limiting what is otherwise understood to be a full, complete and unlimited power (Pastor Aeturnus).
The burden is on you, my friend, to identify the authority saying the pope cannot change the Canon.
Well, my belief as regard Quo Primum I have explained and is much better explained by Fr. Altenbach. There's nothing I can do about no one wanting to spend a few minutes listening to a faithful priest voicing the mind of the Church in the matter, at the same time I do understand why sedes will not allow themselves to listen.
Stubborn (and others who rely on the emphatic language of Quo Primum and it's asserted "perpetuity"),
I know you believe Paul IV's Cuм Ex Apostolatus has been abrograted. You might find this interesting: Cuм Ex has this language in it:
It also uses the word "perpetuity" 7 times, this time one of the more interesting:
Perhaps you have changed your view regarding cuм Ex? That'd be fine: I'm learning things all the time, and adjusting former erroneous opinions as i do, thank the Lord.
That's why we (or I at least) engage in these discussions, giving reasons and supporting evidence/facts - like Magisterial statements, statements of recognized, authoritative doctors and saints, etc. Not all of it infallible, but evidence and support pro or con nonetheless.
DR
General principle of all law is that an equal cannot bind an equal, so one pope cannot bind future popes, except where it's a matter of Divine or natural law, but then it's not the pope doing the binding, but God Himself.The underlined below, is what the sedes are missing. This matter is not a matter of one pope abrogating a law that another pope established or whether one pope can bind his successors or not.
The underlined below, is what the sedes are missing.
As far as Quo Primum goes it's actually moot point, because contrary to the sedes in this thread, we know with certainty that Quo Primum was never abrogated, if for no other reason than because pope Benedict XVI told us that Quo Primum was never abrogated in his Motu.
"Sedes" aren't missing anything, but you seem to be missing your reading comprehension skills. This affirms the principle that an equal cannot bind an equal, and then Father says that a Pope SHOULD not use this authority except for grave reasons, not that he CANNOT.You blinded yourself to the part where he said: "no pope can ever licitly abrogate the bull of St. Pius V."
And you still haven't addressed, other than by your pathetic and ignorant claim that the Breviary is not Liturgy, which distinction has nothing to do with the matter at hand, that Pope St. Pius V also promulgated the Breviary for in perpetuum, "forever", the same language he uses in Quo Primum.It has everything to do with the matter at hand. You do not differentiate, but you should.
You've been soundly refuted but you absolutely refuse to admit that your wrong, and in other areas the more absurd are your claims the more pertinaciously you cling to them. It's childish and pathetic.Although you blind yourself to the fact, you can't refute anything when you only see what you want to see and disregard the rest. As such, you've only dug yourself into a deeper hole while thinking you've refuted something.
Yes another dishonest red herring, along with a begging of the question. This thread has nothing to do with Ratzinger but the hypothetical question of whether a legitimate Pope in principle could make an addition or change to the Canon despite Quo Primum ... and not whether Montini et al. had abrogated it. You also beg the question that Ratzinger was even the Pope and that he was telling the truth rather than making the statement as a tactic to suck Traditional Catholics back into the Conciliar Church (as Ganswein later admitted he had intended to do).Only sedes beg the question as regards the status of popes, it's their foundation. And everyone knows Quo Primum was never abrogated - except you and apparently some other sedes.
Benedict XVI did not refer to Quo primum at all in SP. It is not in the text or even in the footnotes:It's a moot point, Pope Benedict XVI said in his motu that the the true Mass was never abrogated, because the true Mass was never abrogated the law of Quo Primum was never abrogated.
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificuм.html
You blinded yourself to the part where he said: "no pope can ever licitly abrogate the bull of St. Pius V."
Only sedes beg the question as regards the status of popes, it's their foundation. And everyone knows Quo Primum was never abrogated - except you and apparently some other sedes.
And you conveniently leave off the next part, eh, Stubborn? ... where he says that he can VALIDLY do so. This means, as per before, that he CAN do it even if he SHOULDN'T. Nor would the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon constitute an "abrogation" rather than an amendment to it.I did not leave it off in the original quote. You should read the link, it explains the conclusion.
We're not begging anything, moron, you are. Unlike you, who keeps mendaciously distracting from the issue at hand, for us the legitimacy of Ratzinger has nothing to do with the issue. Moreover, his claiming that it HAS not been abrogated is not the same as saying that it CANNOT be abrogated.I'm not begging anything, you're the one you said: "You also beg the question that Ratzinger was even the Pope..."
Of course you assume, even if you think he's the Pope, that he's telling the truth rather than using it as a tactic. This is the guy who produced a clearly fake explanation for the Third Secret of Fatima, so he has a history of deception.
[color=rgba(var(--sk_highlight, 18, 100, 163), 1)]https://books.google.com/books?id=dTlZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA103 (https://books.google.com/books?id=dTlZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA103)[/url][/font][/size][/color]Papal constitutions sometimes contain the clause, “hac immutabili et in perpetuum valitura constitutione.” This is merely an emphatic assertion that the law should not be recalled without reason; it does not bind the Pope’s successor, because “par in parem non habet imperium.” If the successor expressly mentions his predecessor’s law as abolished, the latter loses its force.
I have three different Missale Romani 1939, 1942, and 1952; two printed in the United States and one in Germany. All of them indicate that the Canon ends with the "Deo Gratias" after the Last Gospel. Is there a reason why the modern liturgists want the Canon to end with "Pater Noster"?
Dear Cath Info peeps,
Since we have discussed that, in the matter of the law, discipline, and yes, a certain kind of liturgy, one pope cannot bind another: how are we in the Church of Christ and not in the Church of the Pope? If one pope can change the way we pray, he will affect the way we believe. If that process is repeated over several papacies, we will have a different religion. How does one pope bind another one?
I am unaware of ANY traditional source that refers to the entire Mass of the Faithful as "the Canon".
Dear moneil and Ladislaus,
I have five different Missals: St. Joseph Daily (1951 and 1961), St. Andrew Daily (1961), Father Lasance's My Prayer Book (1908), and Blessed Be God (1925). I'll cite only two, though the others do not contradict my citations in any way I am aware of.
The St. Joseph Daily Missal (1951) correctly divides the Mass into two main parts: The Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful. The Mass of the Faithful is divided into three principal parts: The Offering (Offertory), The Consecration, and The Communion. About the Consecration it says: "The second act of the Eucharistic sacrifice begins with the Preface and concludes with the words, 'World without end. Amen' (just before the Pater Noster). This part of Mass is strictly speaking, the Canon ...".
Blessed Be God (1925) distinguishes different parts of the Second Part of the Mass, or the Mass of the Faithful, as (1) The Offertory, (2) The Preface, (3) The Canon, (4) The Pater Noster and the Breaking of The Host, (5) the Communion, and (6) Conclusion of the Mass.
I am unaware of ANY traditional source that refers to the entire Mass of the Faithful as "the Canon".
Since Our Lord is not directly present on earth (outside the Blessed Sacrament of course), the Pope is his Vicar, i.e. the Pope takes the place of Christ on earth. So, being in the Church of Christ is being in the Church of the Pope. How does something like inserting the name of St. Joseph explicitly into the Canon (he's already there implicitly) change "the way we believe"? It's actually precisely through such small, gradual changes that the Holy Spirit guides the Sacred Liturgy. Neither the Canon nor the Mass were some monolithic thing that was dropped from Heaven. While the faith doesn't change, its expression can, and historical circuмstances change, so different things are emphasized at one time that may not be at another (depending on, for instance, what heresies might be out there). We see this already where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is different in the West than in the East, and yet it's the same Holy Sacrifice, with different aspects of the Catholic faith emphasized more in one Rite than in another. Small changes absolutely do not change the "way we believe".Dear Ladislaus,
Quo primum did nothing with respect to the Eastern rites or their liturgies.Dear jdfaber,
The Missale Romanum is the book that is used by a priest or a bishop for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the big leather-bound book, usually red, on the stand on the Altar. It is not the same book as your daily Missal.
All of them (the Roman Altar Missal) indicate that the Canon ends with the "Deo Gratias" after the Last Gospel.
It would be helpful if someone provided what the word, "codify" means as I previously requested.Not sure why codify is stumping you but the codices spoken of below are the official, ancient docuмents on the Liturgy that were stored in the Vatican Library.
While the organic changes to all the rites of Sacraments were introduced until their codification by Trent, no changes are permitted afterwards. The Council of Trent has deemed certain things settled.
Quo Primum.....
From the very first, upon Our elevation to the chief Apostleship, We gladly turned our mind and energies and
directed all our thoughts to those matters which concerned the preservation of a pure liturgy, and We strove
with God’s help, by every means in our power, to accomplish this purpose. For, besides other decrees of the
sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism,
the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God’s help,
and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may
be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper – for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one
appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass – We deemed it
necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal
as soon as possible.
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 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.
...
It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
Stubborn is now promoting the principles of Antiquarianism, which is precisely what the Liturgical Deformers at the time of Vatican II did. It just keeps getting better, as we watch him cut off his nose to spite his face.Dear Mr. Intellectual, you have no idea what you're talking about. :facepalm:
Pius XII, Mediator Dei:
You should read the entirety of that Encyclical, since it debunks 90% of the nonsense you've been spewing here.
Dear Mr. Intellectual, you have no idea what you're talking about. :facepalm:It is apparent this needs to be explained to you.
How then could Pope Clement VIII issue this bull (https://www.romanitaspress.com/cuм-sanctissimum) in 1604 changing the same Missal of St Pius V?Did you read the Bull? He says through the years the missal had many errors due to printing or whatever, so he re-edited the corrupted missal so that is was put back to the original of Pope St. Pius V. He did not invent a new rite or change it.
"We have ordered, therefore, that the Missal which the same Pius V had edited, thus revised, be printed as faultlessly as possible at Our Vatican printing press and that it be published for the common benefit."When these missals are revised, the main revisions are to the calendar of saints, mass feast days, etc. The mass itself is never revised. Same thing with the 62 missal; the only changes are new feast days for recently canonized saints, changes to feast day classes, etc.
However, Clement VIII continues:Again, the only reason he did anything at all to the Missal was because through the years the missal had many errors due to printing or whatever. He did not invent a new rite or change the old rite. Your above quote even states: "These improvements, however, flowing as it were from the same sources and principles, seem rather to represent and complete the meaning of the rules and rubrics than to introduce anything new."
"We have also entrusted some of Our Venerable Brethren, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, versed in Holy Writ and skilled in ecclesiastical antiquity, with the business of restoring the Missal to its primitive and purest form. In their loyalty to Us, and in their piety and devotion to the Church, these Cardinals, employing also other learned men trained in ecclesiastical scholarship and having searched for, and diligently examined, old Missals and other books bearing upon the subject, have endeavored to restore the Roman Missal to its original purity and to confirm and attest the painstaking care and diligence of Pius V and of those appointed by him. It happened, however, that in the carrying out of this task, as a result of an accurate comparison of ancient books, some things have been improved upon and, concerning the rules and rubrics, some points have been more fully and clearly stated. These improvements, however, flowing as it were from the same sources and principles, seem rather to represent and complete the meaning of the rules and rubrics than to introduce anything new.
"We have ordered, therefore, that the Missal which the same Pius V had edited, thus revised, be printed as faultlessly as possible at Our Vatican printing press and that it be published for the common benefit."
Perhaps it is better to ask, then, if Pius V had never issued Quo primum, what would the status of the traditional Roman rite be?We'd have what we have now - because PPVI ignored Quo Primum as if it was never issued and did not exist.
If the pope has no authority to create a new rite, then Quo primum is irrelevant.No, PPV never created a new rite - he restored it to it's original. The Law of Quo Primum was established to protect the Mass forever, to forever preserve the Liturgy he restored - just as it says in Quo Primum.
Perhaps it is better to ask, then, if Pius V had never issued Quo primum, what would the status of the traditional Roman rite be?The Roman rite would still exist, just as it existed long, long before St Pius V was even born. It would just be very non-uniform, with all kinds of sub-rites (i.e. in addition to approved rites such as Benedictine, Domincan, etc...you'd have a Redemptorist rite, a Passionist rite, maybe even a New York rite, a Texas rite, etc). As human nature is wont to do, there would've been endless "customization" as more and more rites were allowed to continue and/or grow.
We'd have what we have now - because PPVI ignored Quo Primum as if it was never issued and did not exist.You misunderstand me. Let me rephrase: If Pius V had not issued Quo primum, would there be any grounds for a priest to refuse the NOM? In other words, is the right to the traditional Mass only based in Quo primum, or does the right exist indepedent of Quo primum?
No, PPV never created a new rite - he restored it to it's original. The Law of Quo Primum was established to protect the Mass forever, to forever preserve the Liturgy he restored - just as it says in Quo Primum.
We need this for establishing where the Canon truly ends, and this will help with understanding what the Canon is.
Unfortunately, the Gregorian Sacramentary does not use the term Canon Missae. Take a look at 13v here (https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.3806).Dear jdfaber,
The 1496 (https://archive.org/details/missaleromanum1496/page/n253/mode/2up) is likewise unhelpful.
In the 1570 (https://archive.org/details/messale-tridentino-di-san-pio-v-1570/page/n333/mode/2up) Missale, however, we see that Canon Missae is at the top of the page until the end of the ordinary of the Mass.
Likewise, this missal (https://archive.org/details/missale-romanum-1947/page/n413/mode/2up) from 1947 has Canon Missae at the top of the page until the end of the Ordo missae.
However, if you peruse the Ritus servandus at the beginning (https://archive.org/details/missale-romanum-1947/page/n45/mode/2up) of the Missale, you will see that the Canon Missae begins after the Sanctus and seems to end just before the Pater noster.
It is interesting to note that the 1962 (https://archive.org/details/missale-romanum-1962-cmaa-musica-sacra.com-missale-62/page/311/mode/2up) Missale switches back to Ordo Missae at the top of the page at the Pater noster.
You misunderstand me. Let me rephrase: If Pius V had not issued Quo primum, would there be any grounds for a priest to refuse the NOM? In other words, is the right to the traditional Mass only based in Quo primum, or does the right exist indepedent of Quo primum?IMO, yes, priests do and would have the right to refuse the NOM because of what it is and why it is.
Quo Primum says they restored it to "the original form and rite of the Holy Fathers."
Furthermore, St. Pius V did not restore the rite to "its original," which is patently false from a historical point of view, nor did he claim to. The Latin says: ad pristinam Missale Sanctorum Patrum normam ac ritum restituerunt. It does not say "the original;" the word is "pristine." Moreover, the Holy Fathers referred to are not what we call the "Church Fathers." Rather, it refers to more recent times. This can be confirmed if you compare the 1570 Missale with the 1474 printing (https://archive.org/details/missaleromanumme01cath/page/198/mode/2up).
the Mass of Pius V is the Tridentine Mass, is the only Mass of the Roman Rite, is obligatory on all Catholics of that rite forever and should never change. That's the Law of Quo Primum in a nutshell.Catholics do not belong to Rites, they belong to Churches -- 24 Churches in the 1 Catholic Communion to be exact.
Quo Primum says they restored it to "the original form and rite of the Holy Fathers."Except the bull does not say that, as I pointed out to you. We now and they then knew how much the Roman rite had developed since Gregory the Great. "Original" is a poor and faulty translation.
"...they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers."
By the way, if you take a look at the Rubricae generales Missalis of the same 1947 (https://archive.org/details/missale-romanum-1947/page/n29/mode/2up) Missale, you will read that the Canon ends before the Communion: Expleto Canone, et aliis omnibus usque ad Communionem, ea peracta, dicitur Communio.Dear jdfaber,
Dear jdfaber,It is certainly not referring to the communion of the faithful, since that was not considered part of the Mass. Evidently, aliis omnibus usque ad Communionem refers to everything that is after the Canon up to the priest's communion. Ea peracta refers to the priest's communion and its completion.
To which communion is it referring, Communion of the priest or communion of the faithful? What are "allis omnibus", "ea peracta"; what are those "all other things" and "those performed"? Thanks for your help!
But there are variable parts: the Secret, the Preface, the Postcommunions.But these are minimal, compared to the 'mass of the catechumens', which is mostly made up of changing prayers.
I get the impression that you already have an answer to your question. Please enligthen us.Dear jdfaber,
The entire clergy, including every Pope, was forbidden, under the pain of anathema, to hold in disdain, omit, or change into new ones, the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments.( from Canon 13 of the Seventh Session)You are misinterpreting that Tridentine canon. The condemned proposition is that the liturgy can be changed by any pastor whatsoever. In other words, if a person were to say, "Any pastor can change the rites into other new ones," he would fall under the anathema of this canon.
As the crowning confirmation of the codification process, these words were added to the Creed of the Catholic Church: "I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all aforesaid sacraments" (p.303, Henry Denzinger, "The Sources of the Catholic Dogma". B. Herder Book Co. 1957).
Needless to say, every pope is bound by the Article of Faith.
As "Quod Nobis" is the explanation for the Breviary, "Quo Primum" is for the Mass of the Roman Rite.
The papacy was put in control of all the liturgical books of the East and the West. From that time forward, no change was to be made to received and approved rites of the Sacraments. If we look up the meaning of the word, "control" in the dictionary, we will find that it is not about changing or replacing of the thing to be controlled. It is about governing its use.
The Missale Romanum is divided into two parts: the "Mass of the Catechumens" and the "Mass of the Faithful". The "Canon of the Mass" is the rule of the "Mass of the Faithful". It provides the rubrics (instructions) for the sacramental part of the Mass. This prayer, the "Canon of the Mass", contains the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
The "Canon of the Mass" is the rite of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
You are misinterpreting that Tridentine canon. The condemned proposition is that the liturgy can be changed by any pastor whatsoever. In other words, if a person were to say, "Any pastor can change the rites into other new ones," he would fall under the anathema of this canon.Dear jdfaber,
That sentence from the Tridentine Profession of Faith mentions nothing about changing rites.
I do not know where in Quo primum one can find Pius V doing the things you mention.
Out of curiosity, where in your Missale Romanum do you find the distinction between the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful?
The Missale Romanum is the book that is used by a priest or a bishop for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the big leather-bound book, usually red, on the stand on the Altar. It is not the same book as your daily Missal.Fr Hesse is flat out wrong. It's a simple question of logic. The propostion condemned is that any [i.e. every] pastor can change the rites. The denial of this does not at all imply that no pastor can change the rites.
Fr Hesse is flat out wrong. It's a simple question of logic. The propostion condemned is that any [i.e. every] pastor can change the rites. The denial of this does not at all imply that no pastor can change the rites.Dear jdfaber,
Consider this example. Statement: "Anyone can become president." Negation: "Not anyone can become president." You and Fr Hesse would have us believe that "Not anyone" and "no one at all" mean the same thing. They do not.
Furthermore, this is how everyone at Trent and after Trent, including the Protestants, understood this canon to mean. The Council itself affirmed this in Ch. 2, Session 21, when it said, "It declares furthermore, that in the dispensation of the sacraments, the Church may, according to circuмstances, times and places, determine or change whatever she may judge most expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the sacraments; and this power has always been hers."
Whence are understood the words of the cited Canon of the Tridentine Council, sess. 7 can. 13 where it says thus: If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by any pastor whomever of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.These words are to be understood chiefly of the universal rites received in the universal Church, especially the Roman Church, of which rites the Council does not say, that they can be changed by no pastor, but not by whomever: for they cannot be changed by inferior Bishops: because universal rites such as these, as I have said, have their origin from a more universal and superior power: but inferiors are not able to derogate those things which have been instituted and commanded by a superior. Now the supreme Pontiff, from the plenitude of his power, would be able to change rites of this sort: because his power is not inferior, but is the same as that from which rites of this sort took their origin. Yet he never does or will do this without great necessity or utility, especially in these observances which are most ancient in the Church, and are believed to have been given by the Apostles, and perpetually observed. And one must judge, with the same proportion, of the private ceremonies of particular Episcopates. For these can also be changed by Bishops, if they should think it expedient, when they have not been confirmed by the proper authority of the supreme Pontiff, for the same reason. Yet one must beware of scandal in changes of this sort, and consideration of divine worship and the fruit of souls must always be kept in mind for the opportunity of times and places.In other words, he reads the canon in the exact way I told you above.
If you look up quicuмque in Lewis & Short, you will see that "whosoever" is not the only correct translation.
Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that your understanding of the meaning of quicuмque is correct, let's try it this way.
Statement: Whatsoever pastor of the Church can change the rites.
Negation: Not whatsoever pastor of the Church can change the rites.
The logic remains the same. Denying "whatsoever pastor" does not imply affirming "no pastor at all."
For Suarez's discussion of who can change sacramental ceremonies, please read Section III here (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2023/01/02/suarez-on-ius-liturgicuм-i-de-sacramentis-disp-xv/) in translation or here (https://archive.org/details/rpfranciscisuare20suar/page/288/mode/2up) in Latin. Of particular relevance is his discussion of Canon 13:
In other words, he reads the canon in the exact way I told you above.
The Salmanticenses give the exact same reading here (https://archive.org/details/collegiisalmanti17anto/page/644/mode/2up) in disp. X, dub. I, §1 n. 4.
After the sixth session of the Council of Trent, Cardinal Cervini had a list of Protestant errors compiled for the Council to consider. One of these errors was Quemvis pastorem habere potestatem formas sacramentorum prologandi et abbreviandi pro arbitrio suo, et mutandi (see art. 12 here (https://books.google.com/books?id=RqBWnh_NcbsC&pg=PA836#v=onepage&q&f=false). This particular error was taken from Hermann von Wied's Liber reformationis. He was the heretical archbishop of Cologne. This book was largely drawn from the work of Martin Bucer. Thus it threw out all but two of the sacraments and held that their ceremonies, other than what was in Scripture, could be changed at will by any pastor.
You can read what Protestant Martin Chemnitz had to say about Canon 13 here (https://books.google.com/books?id=sMNiAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false). He understood this canon to deny authority to change rites to all pastors except the Pope. Calvin also understood the canon thus (here (https://books.google.com/books?id=zRdLAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA275#v=onepage&q&f=false)). Johann Heinrich Heidegger also read this canon as denying the right of Christians to change rites when necessary (here (https://books.google.com/books?id=kRpRytSlogsC&pg=PA311#v=onepage&q&f=false) and here (https://books.google.com/books?id=gCFYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA630#v=onepage&q&f=false)).
If you look up quicuмque in Lewis & Short, you will see that "whosoever" is not the only correct translation.Dear jdfaber,
Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that your understanding of the meaning of quicuмque is correct, let's try it this way.
Statement: Whatsoever pastor of the Church can change the rites.
Negation: Not whatsoever pastor of the Church can change the rites.
The logic remains the same. Denying "whatsoever pastor" does not imply affirming "no pastor at all."
For Suarez's discussion of who can change sacramental ceremonies, please read Section III here (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2023/01/02/suarez-on-ius-liturgicuм-i-de-sacramentis-disp-xv/) in translation or here (https://archive.org/details/rpfranciscisuare20suar/page/288/mode/2up) in Latin. Of particular relevance is his discussion of Canon 13:
In other words, he reads the canon in the exact way I told you above.
The Salmanticenses give the exact same reading here (https://archive.org/details/collegiisalmanti17anto/page/644/mode/2up) in disp. X, dub. I, §1 n. 4.
After the sixth session of the Council of Trent, Cardinal Cervini had a list of Protestant errors compiled for the Council to consider. One of these errors was Quemvis pastorem habere potestatem formas sacramentorum prologandi et abbreviandi pro arbitrio suo, et mutandi (see art. 12 here (https://books.google.com/books?id=RqBWnh_NcbsC&pg=PA836#v=onepage&q&f=false). This particular error was taken from Hermann von Wied's Liber reformationis. He was the heretical archbishop of Cologne. This book was largely drawn from the work of Martin Bucer. Thus it threw out all but two of the sacraments and held that their ceremonies, other than what was in Scripture, could be changed at will by any pastor.
You can read what Protestant Martin Chemnitz had to say about Canon 13 here (https://books.google.com/books?id=sMNiAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false). He understood this canon to deny authority to change rites to all pastors except the Pope. Calvin also understood the canon thus (here (https://books.google.com/books?id=zRdLAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA275#v=onepage&q&f=false)). Johann Heinrich Heidegger also read this canon as denying the right of Christians to change rites when necessary (here (https://books.google.com/books?id=kRpRytSlogsC&pg=PA311#v=onepage&q&f=false) and here (https://books.google.com/books?id=gCFYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA630#v=onepage&q&f=false)).
The rites of the Sacraments are attached to and provide the rubrics for the form and matter of the Sacraments. Many rites employed in effecting the Sacraments can also be used as the stand alone rites; and as such, they are called Sacramentals. Examples are: the sign of the cross, aspersion with Holy Water, exorcism, consecration of an altar, blessing of the palms, etc.That is not how the word rite is used by the canon or its interpreters. The erroneous propostion Quemvis pastorem habere potestatem formas sacramentorum prologandi et abbreviandi pro arbitrio suo, et mutandi was docuмented by Johann Gropper, who docuмented many of the Protestant errors in the aforementioned Liber reformationis (See here (https://books.google.com/books?id=_o9WAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)).
That is not how the word rite is used by the canon or its interpreters. The erroneous propostion Quemvis pastorem habere potestatem formas sacramentorum prologandi et abbreviandi pro arbitrio suo, et mutandi was docuмented by Johann Gropper, who docuмented many of the Protestant errors in the aforementioned Liber reformationis (See here (https://books.google.com/books?id=_o9WAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)).Dear jdfaber,
However, he uses the word forma in a much broader sense than to just mean the sacramental form. Indeed, Gropper is talking about how the Protestants got rid of all the things you refer to as "sacramentals," but he uses instead forma. Thus when the Council was considering to word a condemnation of this, they realized that forma lent itself to being understood too narrowly as you understand it. Therefore, they changed the wording of the canon to its final form.
You can read all about the textual history of this canon here (https://books.google.com/books?id=RqBWnh_NcbsC&pg=PA835#v=onepage&q&f=false).
That is not how the word rite is used by the canon or its interpreters. The erroneous propostion Quemvis pastorem habere potestatem formas sacramentorum prologandi et abbreviandi pro arbitrio suo, et mutandi was docuмented by Johann Gropper, who docuмented many of the Protestant errors in the aforementioned Liber reformationis (See here (https://books.google.com/books?id=_o9WAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)).Dear jdfaber,
However, he uses the word forma in a much broader sense than to just mean the sacramental form. Indeed, Gropper is talking about how the Protestants got rid of all the things you refer to as "sacramentals," but he uses instead forma. Thus when the Council was considering to word a condemnation of this, they realized that forma lent itself to being understood too narrowly as you understand it. Therefore, they changed the wording of the canon to its final form.
You can read all about the textual history of this canon here (https://books.google.com/books?id=RqBWnh_NcbsC&pg=PA835#v=onepage&q&f=false).
Dear jdfaber,
I keep reading as my time permits and one question constantly comes up: Are the canons of the Tridentine Council infallible statements? Are they dogmatic statements? Or, are they simply guide rules with penalties attached to them? What does the Roman Catholic Church teach in this matter?
Thank you for your help.
It’s absolutely clear to those who don’t have some agenda that a pope can change the Canon of the Mass.He can change the aspects which were added by the Church; he cannot change the parts which are Apostolic (i.e. came directly from Christ).
Yes, the Canons are infallible because they deal with morals, their purpose is to condemn something as a sin (i.e let him be anathema), making it immoral i.e. sinful to do.Dear Stubborn,
I have no idea how this thread has gone in for 17 pages. It’s absolutely clear to those who don’t have some agenda that a pope can change the Canon of the Mass.Dear Ladislaus,
He can change the aspects which were added by the Church; he cannot change the parts which are Apostolic (i.e. came directly from Christ).Dear Pax Vobis,
Dear Stubborn,Certainly. I don't see how it could be otherwise.
Do these Canons deal with the Faith at all?
Except for the words introduced by Pope Gregory the Great, which of the words of the Canon are surely not authored by Our Lord Jesus Christ?I don't know. I don't think anyone on this thread knows.
Dear Ladislaus,
This thread is proving that it is not absolutely clear that a pope can change the Canon. Agendas may go either way.
So when later popes allowed the mention of the king in the Communicantes, as Dom Guéranger tells us (https://books.google.com/books?id=-D9NCgAAQBAJ&dq=), they were anathema?Dear jdfaber,
So when later popes allowed the mention of the king in the Communicantes, as Dom Guéranger tells us (https://books.google.com/books?id=-D9NCgAAQBAJ&dq=), they were anathema?Dear jdfaber,
Dear jdfaber,
On the second thought: Where are the popes now? It's time to study the effects of an anathema.
You should answer his question first. Answering a question with a counter question is dishonest. His question was whether the popes who permitted additions to the Communicantes fell under anathema. Yes or no?Dear Ladislaus,
Dear Ladislaus,:facepalm:
I refer you to my January 10, 2024 thread.
As I explained earlier, Fr Suarez and his followers from the school of Salamanca focused on Sacramentals rather than the rites of the Sacraments. Fr. Suarez in "Disputatio XV" and the Salamanticentes in "Disputatio X" both use the title "De Sacramentalibus" for their chapters concerning the matter. Martinus Keminicius does not distinguish between the Sacramentals and the rites of the Sacraments, but his explanations about the minds of the Fathers of the Council are worth studying.But this isn't what Suarez and the Salmanticenses are referring to. Suarez himself says, "Now in the present matter, we do not use the word ‘ceremony’ in this broadest meaning, but we adapt it to the sacramental ceremony, and by Theologians it is usually simply called a ‘sacramental’. By this word we mean certain religious actions or circuмstances, which the Church observes in the administration of the sacraments, or the oblation of the sacrifice, and which are apart from those which are of the essence, or substance of the sacrifice, such as, in Baptism for example, the Unction, the Exorcism, and other things of this sort" (read here (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2023/01/02/suarez-on-ius-liturgicuм-i-de-sacramentis-disp-xv/)). The Salmanticenses (https://archive.org/details/collegiisalmanti17anto/page/642/mode/2up) likewise clearly state that they are talking about, to quote you, "the ceremonial rites used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments."
The best approach to the topic we are focused on can be found in the "Manual of Dogmatic Theology" of Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pohl: "There are two kinds of sacramentals: 1) such as accompany the administration of the Sacraments (e.g. the exorcisms pronounced in Baptism, the use of salt, the anointing of the forehead), and 2) such as may be used independently of the Sacraments and have a quasi matter and form of their own (e.g. the different ecclesiastical blessings). The former are called sacramental ceremonies, the latter sacramentals in the strict sense of the term." ( The Pohle-Preuss Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Loreto Publications 2014. vol 8. p. 111)
"Sacramentals in the strict sense are rites resembling those of the sacraments, but independent of them, instituted by the Church for the supernatural advantage of the faithful." ( ibid. p.113) "They resemble the Sacraments in this that they ordinarily consist of the matter and form and produce a spiritual effect on the recipient. ( ibid. p.114)
So when Fr Suarez and his school mention the Sacramentals in their respective "Disputationes XV and X", that is what they are referring to.
Dear Ladislaus,
I refer you to my January 10, 2024 thread.
But this isn't what Suarez and the Salmanticenses are referring to. Suarez himself says, "Now in the present matter, we do not use the word ‘ceremony’ in this broadest meaning, but we adapt it to the sacramental ceremony, and by Theologians it is usually simply called a ‘sacramental’. By this word we mean certain religious actions or circuмstances, which the Church observes in the administration of the sacraments, or the oblation of the sacrifice, and which are apart from those which are of the essence, or substance of the sacrifice, such as, in Baptism for example, the Unction, the Exorcism, and other things of this sort" (read here (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2023/01/02/suarez-on-ius-liturgicuм-i-de-sacramentis-disp-xv/)). The Salmanticenses (https://archive.org/details/collegiisalmanti17anto/page/642/mode/2up) likewise clearly state that they are talking about, to quote you, "the ceremonial rites used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments."Dear jdfaber,
Yes or no would be pretty simple to type, quicker than this non-answer.Dear Ladislaus,
Dear Ladislaus,
Sometimes yes or no questions lead to wrong conclusions. Please sacrifice and reread the thread, you will have the correct answer.
:facepalm:
"By this word we mean certain religious actions or circuмstances, which the Church observes in the administration of the sacraments, or the oblation of the sacrifice, and which are apart from those which are of the essence, or substance of the sacrifice..."Suarez writes, "And thus it is certain, that the Canon, according to that form which now is said in the Mass, is neither of the substance of the sacrifice, nor instituted by Christ the Lord: for such institution is nowhere recorded" (here (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2023/07/03/suarez-on-ius-liturgicuм-iv-de-sacramentis-disp-lxxxiii-sect-ii-the-roman-canon/)).
The sacraments consist of matter and form to which is added the intention of the minister. The rite of the sacrament binds these together. In the case of the Holy Mass this role is fulfilled by the Canon. The Canon is the rite that contains the essence, or substance of the sacrifice which is Transubstantiation, it is not apart from the substance of the sacrifice, it also provides the rubrics for it.
In other words:
The substance of the Canon is the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The substance of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the form of Transubstantiation and the matter of bread and wine. The substance of the form are the words of the institution. The substance of the matter is leaven or unleavened bread and sacramental wine.
The Canon without the Sacrament of the Eucharist does not exist, its only purpose is the sacrifice.
Suarez writes, "And thus it is certain, that the Canon, according to that form which now is said in the Mass, is neither of the substance of the sacrifice, nor instituted by Christ the Lord: for such institution is nowhere recorded" (here (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2023/07/03/suarez-on-ius-liturgicuм-iv-de-sacramentis-disp-lxxxiii-sect-ii-the-roman-canon/)).Dear jdfaber,
The Canon is not the substance of the sacrifice, it contains the substance of the sacrifice.In other words, "the religious actions or circuмstances … which are apart from those which are of the essence, or substance of the sacrifice"
In other words, "the religious actions or circuмstances … which are apart from those which are of the essence, or substance of the sacrifice"Dear jdfaber,
Conclusion: If Canon XIII of the Seventh Session of Trent is a dogmatic statement and not just a disciplinary rule with a serious penalty, then it should fulfill the requirements of infallibility. If it does fulfill the aforementioned requirements, one of which is binding the Universal Church, it also binds a pope. By codification of the rites of the Sacraments, the Council of Trent intended to preserve them and protect them from changes.If something is taught dogmatically, it was true before it was taught. It didn't begin to be true when it was taught. If your reading of the canon is correct, then would it not have always been true that no one could change the rites without offense? And yet we know that saints did this very thing. Was St Gregory the Great acting contrary to the faith when he added to the canon?
If something is taught dogmatically, it was true before it was taught. It didn't begin to be true when it was taught. If your reading of the canon is correct, then would it not have always been true that no one could change the rites without offense? And yet we know that saints did this very thing. Was St Gregory the Great acting contrary to the faith when he added to the canon?Dear jdfaber,