Author Topic: Trent session XXII  (Read 988 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geremia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Reputation: +845/-176
  • Gender: Male
    • St. Isidore e-book library
Trent session XXII
« on: January 18, 2013, 11:35:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Some things I noticed while reading Trent session XXII, which Card. Ottaviani cited in his intervention to Pope Paul VI on September 25th, 1969 as the primary reason for why the Novus (dis)Ordo is not Catholic. Here are my observations:
     • ch. IV: Most priests offering the Novus Ordo don't use the Roman Canon. Could the other "Eucharistic Prayers" (by far used much more frequently than the Roman Canon) even be considered variants on the Roman Canon?
     • ch. V: Is anything in the Novus Ordo pronounced summissa voce (cf. the Council of Pistoia and Pope Pius VI's bull Auctorem Fidei condemning it)?
     • ch. VII: I don't think any Novus Ordo priests mix a bit of water with the wine prior to consecration.
     • ch. VIII condemns saying the Mass entirely in the vulgar tongue.
     • "Canon VI.—If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated: let him be anathema." Does this apply also to the invention of the new Novus Ordo "Eucharistic Prayers"?
     • This canon—"Canon VII.—If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety: let him be anathema."—seems to contradict Sacrosanctum Concilium §34 that "The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity", viz., minimalism, because "sumptuous display" (§124) is to be avoided; what is spiritually profitable is to be avoided?
     • And of course "CANON IX.—If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema." sums up most of the above. This is exactly what the Council of Pistoia promoted and what Pope Pius VI's bull Auctorem Fidei condemned.
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre

    Offline romanitaspress

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 62
    • Reputation: +15/-0
    Trent session XXII
    « Reply #1 on: January 28, 2013, 10:11:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Geremia,

    Some answers to your observations:

    ch. iv: for one, the "old Roman Canon" Eucharistic Prayer I is a mutilated form of the ancient Roman Canon, changed for the sake of ecumenism; thus it is certainly not a traditional or organic development (as is the case with the rest of the New Mass). Even more so, the other Eucharistic Prayers cannot be considered as having any part with the authentic Roman Canon.

    ch. v: some priests do render certain things in silence, but I would need to look up the new GIRM to see if this is actually prescribed or considered an option... that being said, I could actually care less, because the issue of the voice is essentially a matter of praxis and not of doctrine - thus in comparison to the doctrinal deficiencies of the New Mass, such accidentals pale in comparison.

    ch. vii: the mixing of the water and wine is prescribed in the GIRM of the New Mass.

    ch. viii: it actually does not *condemn* the use of the vernacular, but simply *proscribes* it - in fact, the Council Father discussed this point in depth, and it was ultimately decided that the introduction of the vulgar tongue for pastoral reasons was "not expedient" at the time, due to the proximity of the Protestant Reformation. What it does condemn are those who asserted that the entire Mass should be said in the vernacular and not in Latin. But ditto as above, this is again an accidental matter in the whole scheme of things - nonetheless, I would agree, the Mass should not be entirely in the vernacular, and personally, I think Catholics should just learn their Latin!

    can. vi: you might be able to apply this anathema to the most strident of the liberal liturgical revolutionaries who felt the Canon was in error for being a "stumbling block to ecumenism" - but the violation of their Oath against Modernism would have already done this!

    can vii: actually, there is something to be said about the "noble simplicity" of the traditional Roman Mass, as seen in monastic communities (who avoid "sumptuous display" so one can concentrate on the supernatural, rather than the natural - which can draw us down to earth or even consist of vanity), so your conclusion is not completely accurate. What is incorrect though is the notion that we should not use anything of special material value for the Holy Sacrifice - I presume that is what you meant?

    can ix: okay... but what's the point - we already know this.


    Offline Geremia

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3078
    • Reputation: +845/-176
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
    Trent session XXII
    « Reply #2 on: February 14, 2013, 11:54:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: romanitaspress
    ch. iv: for one, the "old Roman Canon" Eucharistic Prayer I is a mutilated form of the ancient Roman Canon, changed for the sake of ecumenism; thus it is certainly not a traditional or organic development (as is the case with the rest of the New Mass). Even more so, the other Eucharistic Prayers cannot be considered as having any part with the authentic Roman Canon.
    Wow, I didn't know it wasn't exactly the same. Doesn't surprise me, though
    Quote from: romanitaspress
    ch. v: some priests do render certain things in silence, but I would need to look up the new GIRM to see if this is actually prescribed or considered an option... that being said, I could actually care less, because the issue of the voice is essentially a matter of praxis and not of doctrine - thus in comparison to the doctrinal deficiencies of the New Mass, such accidentals pale in comparison.
    Auctorem Fidei condemns it.
    Quote from: romanitaspress
    ch. viii: it actually does not *condemn* the use of the vernacular, but simply *proscribes* it - in fact, the Council Father discussed this point in depth
    What session, day, etc., was that, do you know?
    Quote from: romanitaspress
    can vii: actually, there is something to be said about the "noble simplicity" of the traditional Roman Mass, as seen in monastic communities (who avoid "sumptuous display" so one can concentrate on the supernatural, rather than the natural - which can draw us down to earth or even consist of vanity), so your conclusion is not completely accurate. What is incorrect though is the notion that we should not use anything of special material value for the Holy Sacrifice - I presume that is what you meant?
    No, that's not what I meant.
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9502
    • Reputation: +3768/-868
    • Gender: Male
    Trent session XXII
    « Reply #3 on: February 14, 2013, 05:49:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Session XXII starts off with:

    The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein--to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the holy Catholic Church; and may, all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares; and decrees what follows, to be preached to the faithful, on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a true and singular sacrifice.



    The thing that gets me is that Trent declares right up front, right at the very beginning of Session XXII that the Holy Ghost guided them in the proper matter, form and intention - so we not only are absolutely assured of validity, we are also assured that this Holy Sacrifice is the only Holy Sacrifice which is pleasing to God - and because the Holy Ghost guided Trent, we know it was this Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary which was meant to be celebrated for all time.

    Because God guided Trent, unless we are foolish enough to think that God would have guided Trent into codifying  a Mass that He really did not want, we can be assured that the TLM is the manner in which God Himself wants us to worship Him, as such, it stands to reason that when the Mass was replaced, that act in and of itself displeased God, add to that, it was replaced with a thing (the NOM) that God does not want, which, to say the least, only adds to His displeasure.

    Comparing canons and notes between the TLM and the NOM is one thing, but when it comes right down to it, the act of replacing the TLM with the NOM is the height of diabolical audacity.  



     


    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Geremia

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3078
    • Reputation: +845/-176
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
    Trent session XXII
    « Reply #4 on: February 14, 2013, 10:56:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Comparing canons and notes between the TLM and the NOM is one thing, but when it comes right down to it, the act of replacing the TLM with the NOM is the height of diabolical audacity.
    Especially since it was a work of human hands…
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre


    Offline Peter in Chains

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 31
    • Reputation: +30/-0
    Trent session XXII
    « Reply #5 on: February 16, 2013, 10:05:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote

    Some things I noticed while reading Trent session XXII, which Card. Ottaviani cited in his intervention to Pope Paul VI on September 25th, 1969 as the primary reason for why the Novus (dis)Ordo is not Catholic. Here are my observations:

    What is Catholic Mass then - the Mass of Pius V only?
    What about other rites' ( non Latin ) masses?
    Where's the refuge in the devastated vineyard, so to speak?


    Offline Geremia

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3078
    • Reputation: +845/-176
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
    Trent session XXII
    « Reply #6 on: February 16, 2013, 12:22:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Peter in Chains
    What is Catholic Mass then - the Mass of Pius V only?
    No.
    Quote from: Peter in Chains
    What about other rites' ( non Latin ) masses?
    He wasn't speaking about them. He was speaking about the Latin rite.
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9502
    • Reputation: +3768/-868
    • Gender: Male
    Trent session XXII
    « Reply #7 on: February 17, 2013, 08:55:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Peter in Chains

    What is Catholic Mass then - the Mass of Pius V only?
    What about other rites' ( non Latin ) masses?
    Where's the refuge in the devastated vineyard, so to speak?



    The Mass of Pope St. Pius V is to be the only Mass - notwithstanding the exceptions as declared below.............

    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.

    All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to 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.

    We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

    Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.


    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16