I think it is a lack of understanding on all our parts. I read through Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio and it states this:
"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite."
This would make for an interesting discussion: Are they two different rites or merely different versions of the same rite?
Pius V codified the Roman Tridentine rite in order to unify all the different types of rites being used around the world. He said in Quo Primum it was the Mass for all time and could never be abrogated:"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches..."
Ok. Pope Pius V, as Vicar of Christ ,is speaking for the Church saying the Missal codified by the Church (Vatican) is the one that the rest of the world must now use with the exception of rites older than 200 years and other dispensations.
This was because, since the reformation, all sorts of odd liturgies were being used and introduced. In 1962 this same said Rite was revised by Pope John XXIII, and then in 1970, it was greatly revised by Pope Paul VI. Now, as we have established, a Pope has the power and authority to modify rites and liturgy. The Pope IS the the Holy Roman Church and thus what she has decreed she can change. Yes, Pope Paul the IV never abrogated Quo Premum, however what he did do is greatly modified this universal Roman Tridentine rite while maintaining its essentials.
Was it a good idea? NO! It was a terrible idea and proved a great danger to the faith. Was it heresy? No.
But wait, Quo Primum states: "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."
Yes, no one else can change it BUT what the Holy Roman Church has decreed, she - and she alone - can change. Each Pope is one and the same authority: St. Peter.
Sorry, with all due respect to his office, I have no time for Fr. Hesse. He is a man who cannot make distinctions as I have already shown and is sowing much confusion. Tell me, Pax, what is his background? Why did he leave the Vatican? Whose authority was he under? Did he practice as a priest? What do you really know about him?
In short, find me a more trustworthy source of information.
The answer to your question, Boru is that the
Sacrosanctum Concilium,
Missale Romanum, and
Summorum Pontificuм all speak of two different "rites" (aka rituals/usages) of the same Roman "Rite" (aka a collection of rituals...the Roman collection of rituals in this case):
Here are the two different rites (individual rituals or usages) being discussed in those docuмents:
1. the "Rite of the Mass"
2. the "new Rite of concelebration"
Below is the evidence that the Council Fathers, Paul VI and BXVI were distinguishing between these two different "rites."
Sacrosanctum Concilium (50-58):
50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised...
58. A new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal.
Missale Romanum:
The recent Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council, in promulgating the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, established the basis for the general revision of the Roman Missal: in declaring "both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify";(4) in ordering that "the rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished";(5) in prescribing that "the treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's Word";(6) in ordering, finally, that "a new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and incorporated into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal."(7)
Summorum PontificuмArt 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.
By the way, the Roman Rite has another well-known rite/ritual/usage that is part of the
lex orandi of the Church. Can you guess what that is? It is the "rite of Benediction." Benediction is not "the Mass," but it is a legally promulgated prayer service in the Roman Rite. And the "new rite of concelebration" was also legally promulgated, but not as "the Mass," meaning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It was supposed to be a new form of prayer. It was supposed to represent the Last Supper not Calvary. Calvary is the focus of the Holy Sacrifice. The
Novus Ordo is a reenactment of the Last Supper.
So, the legal language found in Paul VI's Missale Romanum did not promulgate the
Novus Ordo as a replacement of the "Rite of Mass." Benedict confirms this in SP. Paul VI made it clear that he was simply adding that New Ordo to the Missale Romanum as the "new rite of Concelebration," as he was instructed to do by the the Council Fathers. What is the purpose of this "new rite of concelebration?" It was, ostensibly, a liturgy to be used in special occasions such as Holy Thursday and Ordination ceremonies ONLY. The liturgists had been planning that for decades prior to Vatican II.
But a magic trick was performed by the infiltrators in the Vatican in charge of revising the Roman Missal. Those people removed the traditional Rite of the Mass and replaced it with the new "rite of concelebration." The majority of Catholics (the false brethren, the tares, the cockle) loved the new "rite of concelebration" just as the architects of the revolution knew that they would. This relegated the tiny minority of real Catholics (those who understood what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass really was) to a bunch of kooks who no "normal" Catholic paid any attention to. And, as they say, the rest is history.
Topic: Universal doubtful intention (Read 8013 times)