Author Topic: The NO in context (Read 899 times)

Iuvenalis · « **on:** October 15, 2014, 10:32:36 PM »

So, something that's always had me scratching my head...

It seems there's a few arguments against the NO, which I'll put into a few categories, in no order:

1a-The NO is a banal invention, no continuity

1b-The NO is quite protestant

1c-Like 1a, this invention lacks the correct formulae/form for the true Sacrament

2-The NO is not the TLM, period, end of story, and Pope St Pius V made it clear the Mass was never to be changed.

Others...(big groupings/categories please)

It's this latter case, that there is supposed to be *one* Mass, always and forever, that gets me thinking.

I always wondered about this argument, as *even before VII there was not only 1 Rite*. There was always the Dominican Rite (and Gallican for that matter). The Canon of the Mass for the Dominican Rite is pretty much (exactly?) identical to the Roman Rite.

So, I've never heard anyone say the Dominican Rite was not valid etc (although now they've Vatican II-ized the Dominican Rite) before VII.

Is that because the Canon of the Mass was identical(?) in both rites that it 'gets a pass'?

There has never been *one* Mass, even before VII

poche · « **Reply #1 on:** October 16, 2014, 12:33:03 AM »

2-The NO is not the TLM, period, end of story, and Pope St Pius V made it clear the Mass was never to be changed.

If the mass was never to be changed then why are there different missals. The missal of teh SSPX is the missal of 1962. There are other missals that are earlier. For example I have a missal that is dated 1852 and ther are no prayers to St Michael or the Blessed virgin after the mass.

poche · « **Reply #2 on:** October 16, 2014, 12:35:37 AM »

I always wondered about this argument, as *even before VII there was not only 1 Rite*. There was always the Dominican Rite (and Gallican for that matter). The Canon of the Mass for the Dominican Rite is pretty much (exactly?) identical to the Roman Rite.

There were also the Carmelite rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite, etc...
That does not include the oriental rites, the Byzantine rite the Coptic rite, The Chaldean rite, etc...

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #3 on:** October 16, 2014, 03:05:57 AM »

Quote from: poche

2-The NO is not the TLM, period, end of story, and Pope St Pius V made it clear the Mass was never to be changed.

If the mass was never to be changed then why are there different missals. The missal of teh SSPX is the missal of 1962. There are other missals that are earlier. For example I have a missal that is dated 1852 and ther are no prayers to St Michael or the Blessed virgin after the mass.

You're being obtuse. That's about as charitable as I can be on that point.

So, first, I think the Society adopting the 1962 was a mistake. That's my opinion. I know Matthew is not fond of the prohibitionism because John XXIII "had a hand in it," but the only difference I can cotton is a missing confiteor, the St Joseph addition, and the Holy Week changes. I might be missing some things. I use a Lasance missal and the Propers are always the same and the Ordinary is always the same except the aforementioned missing Confiteor and St. Joseph added...

It's one thing for Leo XIII to add the Prayer to St. Michael to the end of a low Mass, and another thing entirely to start changing the Canon of the Mass itself.

That is *after* the Ite Missa Est, so the Mass is actually *over* at that point. You're talking apples and elephants.

tdrev123 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 16, 2014, 03:06:05 AM »

There is One Mass - and they're are variations of it. The Amrbosian etc rites are derived from Apostolic tradition just like the tridentine rite. They aren't inferior but the church should really have one sole variation of it-whichever the scholars and theologians thought was closest to the Apostles Mass, so the tridentine rite was what was made obligatory except ancient other rites, because they are just as valid and close to Tridentine rite. The Novus Ordo is derived from the Jєωs and pagans.

tdrev123 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 16, 2014, 03:11:31 AM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

Quote from: poche
2-The NO is not the TLM, period, end of story, and Pope St Pius V made it clear the Mass was never to be changed.

If the mass was never to be changed then why are there different missals. The missal of teh SSPX is the missal of 1962. There are other missals that are earlier. For example I have a missal that is dated 1852 and ther are no prayers to St Michael or the Blessed virgin after the mass.

You're being obtuse. That's about as charitable as I can be on that point.

So, first, I think the Society adopting the 1962 was a mistake. That's my opinion. I know Matthew is not fond of the prohibitionism because John XXIII "had a hand in it," but the only difference I can cotton is a missing confiteor, the St Joseph addition, and the Holy Week changes. I might be missing some things. I use a Lasance missal and the Propers are always the same and the Ordinary is always the same except the aforementioned missing Confiteor and St. Joseph added...

It's one thing for Leo XIII to add the Prayer to St. Michael to the end of a low Mass, and another thing entirely to start changing the Canon of the Mass itself.

That is *after* the Ite Missa Est, so the Mass is actually *over* at that point. You're talking apples and elephants.

SPPV said that the mass was never to be changed of certain things- The specific core parts of the tridentine rite could never be changed - a slight change in a missal does not change the Tridentine Rite...
"I have a missal that is dated 1852...." That might be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard Poche...It is After the Mass --- Did SPPV say "After the low mass, prayers can never be mandated by the holy office" because that is what your pretty much saying

Stubborn · « **Reply #6 on:** October 16, 2014, 03:25:57 AM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

It's this latter case, that there is supposed to be *one* Mass, always and forever, that gets me thinking.

I always wondered about this argument, as *even before VII there was not only 1 Rite*. There was always the Dominican Rite (and Gallican for that matter). The Canon of the Mass for the Dominican Rite is pretty much (exactly?) identical to the Roman Rite.

So, I've never heard anyone say the Dominican Rite was not valid etc (although now they've Vatican II-ized the Dominican Rite) before VII.

Is that because the Canon of the Mass was identical(?) in both rites that it 'gets a pass'?

There has never been *one* Mass, even before VII

Unlike V2, which all but made it a crime to use the TLM after the new mass came out, Pope St. Pius V permitted the use of rites that were already in existence for at least 200 years.

Quote from: Quo Primum

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of 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, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #7 on:** October 16, 2014, 03:34:20 AM »

So a different form, can nonetheless be a valid Mass.

Provided it was extant at the time of Trent.

So it's not about form per se...?

poche · « **Reply #8 on:** October 16, 2014, 03:49:17 AM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

So a different form, can nonetheless be a valid Mass.

Provided it was extant at the time of Trent.

So it's not about form per se...?

It had to be extant at least 200 years before the time of Trent.

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** October 16, 2014, 04:28:15 AM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

So a different form, can nonetheless be a valid Mass.

Provided it was extant at the time of Trent.

So it's not about form per se...?

Well, first thing he says is that: "This new rite alone is to be used"...... then he includes conditions, and permits other rites that were already approved at least 200 years earlier.

But he did all he could do to forbid even future popes and councils from inventing or permitting new rites of the mass, which V2 completely ignored.

He never itemized the various other rites which were 200 or more years in existence and personally, I don't know which ones he was talking about, but if they did what they did to the TLM, seems like a no brainer that they did the same thing to every other valid rite he was talking about.