Council of Trent and the Changing of Rites

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tannhauser_1509
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tannhauser_1509

Guest
This is canon XIII, from the section “On the Sacraments in General,” of the seventh session of the Council of Trent:
XIII. Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbates Ecclesiæ Catholicæ ritus, in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos, aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.
Click to expand...
XIII. 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 every pastor of the churches, into other new ones: let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
I am under the impression that “quemcumque” does not admit of exceptions, meaning more literally “whomsoever,” thus including the pope himself. Would this canon not apply to the Missal of Paul VI, barring of course Ratzinger’s technical straining about the “hermeneutic of continuity”? Is it not an infallible canon?
 
The canon refers to "the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church".

The rites we use today are received and approved rites of the Church .
 
Rob2 said:
The canon refers to "the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church ".

The rites we use today are received and approved rites of the Church .
Click to expand...
At the time of the canon’s writing, the Roman rite as a “received and approved rite” would have been what Pius V ended up codifying in Quo Primum in 1570. The integrity of the rite obtains, not from the fact that it was promulgated, but from its having been received first and subsequently approved.

The canon is meaningless if rites can be altered, their alterations called a “reception,” then approved ex post facto.
 
Last edited:
You might want search CAF for the multitude of other threads where this has been discussed, and the right of the Church to make liturgical changes very ably defended.
 
Last edited:
Why are we suddenly getting a whole boatload of threads on Vatican II changes in the last couple weeks? As angel12 said, we’ve been over this, and over this, and over this, and over this.
 
Pope is above canon law, same way Pope can change this if it needs to be. If Pope approves change of rite, Church approves change of rite.

After all, even Tridentine Mass was changed A LOT during history, minor tweaking but changes nevertheless. It’s just that Novus Ordo change is much more significant and therefore everyone will notice.
 
Tannhauser_1509 said:
40.png
Rob2:
The canon refers to "the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church ".

The rites we use today are received and approved rites of the Church .
Click to expand...
At the time of the canon’s writing, the Roman rite as a “received and approved rite” would have been what Pius V ended up codifying in Quo Primum in 1570. The integrity of the rite obtains, not from the fact that it was promulgated, but from its having been received first and subsequently approved.

The canon is meaningless if rites can be altered, their alterations called a “reception,” then approved ex post facto.
Click to expand...
Quo Primum statement included an exception for ancient liturgies also: “except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing”. Examples: Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan, Dominican, Cistercian, Carmelite, Carthusian, and Norbetine.

There were more typical editions since:
  • Roman Missal on 7 July 1604 by Pope Clement VIII
  • Roman Missal on 2 September 1634 by Pope Urban VIII
  • Roman Missal on 25 July 1920 by St. Pope Pius X promulgated by Pope Benedict XV
 
1ke said:
You would be wrong. The Pope is the supreme legislator.
Click to expand...
This rests on the premise that the canon is disciplinary in nature. But grant, for argument’s sake, that it touches on a matter of doctrine. A council can make an infallible definition concerning the powers of the pope. For instance, it could say, “If anyone saith, that a man quicumque hath the power to remove the sacramental character conferred by baptism, confirmation, and holy orders; anathema sit.” This is a statement touching on doctrinal logic: what is truly indelible is indelible without exception. The pope may be the supreme legislator, but any of his legislation to the contrary of said definition would be contradictory to reality, and therefore can be challenged and ignored in good conscience.

Note also that canon XIII says, not “Roman rite,” but “rites of the Catholic Church.” This would include non-Roman Western rites and Eastern rites as well. Pius V only ever promulgated a Roman missal, and left to the other churches the maintenance of their own rites (those which were at least 200 years old, that is). It is curious that the canon simply says “whatsoever pastor of the churches” and not “pastor of his respective church,” thus indicating that this canon is universal in scope and touches on the very relation of the liturgy to ecclesiastical legislation and tampering. The more natural rendering of the canon is that no pastor of any church may change any rite into a new rite, even if it be his own rite.

Lastly, the text says, not “mutari” full stop, but “in novos alios mutari,” meaning that the rite is fundamentally altered or exchanged for a novelty.
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
No. You have the wrong idea about infallibility. Disciplines and doctrines are two different things. The canons regarding the mass are disciplinary. Not doctrinal in any way.
Click to expand...
So this can be cleared up, how does one discern between what is disciplinary and doctrinal?

I ask this only because this is the introduction for the canons of this session:
t hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired. With this view, in order to destroy the errors and to extirpate the heresies which have appeared in these our days on the subject of the said most holy sacraments,—as well those which have been revived from the heresies condemned of old by our Fathers, as also those newly invented, and which are exceedingly prejudicial to the purity of the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls,—the sacred and holy, œcumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein, adhering to the doctrine of the holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consent of other councils and of the Fathers, has thought fit that these present canons be established and decreed . . . [my bold]
Click to expand...

Here are the canons directly preceding and succeeding, respectively, the canon in question:
If any one saith, that a minister, being in mortal sin,—if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,—neither effects, nor confers the sacrament: let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
If any one saith, that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ: let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Where is the footnote which sets canon XIII in the section “On the Sacraments in General” as formally distinct—as regards its matter and purpose—from basically all the other canons of this session, which clearly touch on matters of doctrine?
 
Last edited:
This simply applies to priests and so called reformers altering the rites in ways not approved by the Church. The Ordinary Form is a rite of the Church approved by the Church, and likewise the canon at Trent forbids priests and bishops from calling it invalid and making changes and alterations to it without approval. Context is important. This was at the height of the Reformation. There were approved rites and there were likely massive issues with people rejecting the mass or tweaking it to their liking. This in no way would apply to Church approved reforms to the rites.
 
You’r reading that canon wrong. The Council of Trent also teaches the following (Session 21) in harmony with that canon:
It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, 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 circumstances, times, and places.
Click to expand...
Pius XII brings forth the logical result that this power is ultimately in the Pope (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.
Click to expand...
The canon cited in the opening post would apply just as much to the new Mass rites. They have both been approved by the supreme authority of the Church (that should be enough) and received by all the local Churches.

In general, reception by the Churches is itself proof of the legitimacy and holiness of a rite, custom, and even a doctrine. Approval by the Apostolic See is an even greater proof. In this case, to hold a rite in contempt that the Apostolic See approved and the other Churches had received as worthy would be an error and an inversion of authority.

Think about it logically. Since no particular rite was received directly from Christ, each rite is made up of parts that were instituted, approved, or received at a variety of times and from a variety of persons (the history of even the rite at the time of Trent bears this out). Even the NO has both parts from ancient as well as more recent vintage. A particular part of a rite may have been devised in one local Church at a particular time, but its reception by other Churches and/or approval by the Apostolic See would be proof of its worthiness for its purpose.

In the case of the NO, it has been both approved by the Apostolic See (which in that case would be enough by itself), but also received by every single particular Church of the Latin rite (none of the Eastern Catholic Churches contemn it either).

Trent is countering those Protestants who heaped contempt on the Church’s rites and encouraged ministers to just do whatever they wanted instead as well as those who said the Church couldn’t develop any rites or make any changes in this regard. Both denied the Church’s power and authority over her own rites.
 
Last edited:
They are being quite charitable in my opinion.
This is a settled matter which has been discussed before.
 
Genesis315 said:
The canon cited in the opening post would apply just as much to the new Mass rites. They have both been approved by the supreme authority of the Church (that should be enough) and received by all the local Churches.
Click to expand...
Who are the “pastores ecclesiarum” in the canon from the OP, then?
 
At the time of Trent, there were a number of new Rites & Uses popping up within the Latin Church. There were 3 alone in England and a fourth used in other parts of the British Isles.

So what Trent was addressing was bishops who were creating their own local rites in a non-organic way.

I hope this helps.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top