Council of Trent + OF/NO

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quis_UtDeus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quis_UtDeus said:
Hello everyone, I was told recently that this quote from the Council of Trent makes it so that the Ordinary Form/Novus Ordo is illicit.

CANON 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 whomsoever, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Session 7)

Does anyone have an adequate response to this?
Click to expand...
Just curious – why would you even entertain the notion that the Church would give us an illicit Mass? Do you really have that much distrust for the Church?
 
angel12 said:
Just curious – why would you even entertain the notion that the Church would give us an illicit Mass? Do you really have that much distrust for the Church?
Click to expand...
That’s not a very charitable assumption. He asked a perfectly good question and wanted a proper rebuttal to a legalistic interpretation of that canon. Wanting a reasoned response to that sort of claim does not mean one is entertaining the idea of the Church promulgating an illicit Mass.
 
Fauken said:
That’s not a very charitable assumption. He asked a perfectly good question and wanted a proper rebuttal to a legalistic interpretation of that canon. Wanting a reasoned response to that sort of claim does not mean one is entertaining the idea of the Church promulgating an illicit Mass.
Click to expand...
I’m not assuming anything. I’m asking why even give such a statement any credence at all.
 
Quis_UtDeus said:
Hello everyone, I was told recently that this quote from the Council of Trent makes it so that the Ordinary Form/Novus Ordo is illicit.

CANON 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 whomsoever, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Session 7)

Does anyone have an adequate response to this?
Click to expand...
The Ordinary Form is an approved rite of the Church, not changes made by “whomsoever” (i.e. priests and laity making their own innovations) but was and is officially put forth by the Church herself.
 
twf said:
Yeah it’s funny how St Pius X’s fairly radical reforms get a free pass by even the most radical traditionalists.
Click to expand...
Not all. There’s the SSPV who reject those SSPX modernists . . .

😦

hawk
 
All things considered this is a person who has danced with sedevacantism (He’s not now, thank God. He’s changed to Eastern Rites but still despises the OF/NO). He is actively telling people this and they’re listening, thus a reasoned refutation to this claim would be nice.

Knowing him, he would claim that it isn’t the Church itself that gave us the Mass just fallible men in the Church.

Thus I’m going to need a more fleshed out response to this when he pulls it up again.
 
This is a mega big nail in the coffin right there. Thank you.
 
Leave him alone. It is a legitimate question. You can tell by his reply to Fauken.
 
Not that I know of, but we could really use a group opposed to the transition to the vernacular, dedicated to returning to greek liturgy rather than what the people of Rome spoke sixteen centuries ago . . .

:crazy_face::roll_eyes:😜
 
Wasn’t that a whale falling from the sky? One of the Douglas Adams books… 🙂
 
Yes but it was made possible by a Pius XII document specifying that only the Pope could change the Mass.

What is illegal IMO is for bishops and priests to change what’s been approved by the Holy See.
 
Genesis315 said:
Contemning the novus Ordo, an approved rite of the Church, or making unauthorized changes to it is just as much in violation of that canon.
Click to expand...
The Canon states “approved and received.” I wouldn’t call it received when then-Cardinal Ratzinger unofficially called the Novus Ordo a “fabrication.”
 
The vernacular is an issue addressed by Session 22 of the same council. Actually they referred to it as “vulgaris lingua.”
 
ProVobis said:
The vernacular is an issue addressed by Session 22 of the same council. Actually they referred to it as “vulgaris lingua.”
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about that council, it’s recent.

I’m talking about Rome giving up greek for the vernacular in the third and fourth centuries.
 
Right book, but the quote came from the bowl of petunias that appeared next to the whale. The whale was too busy trying to figure out what to call all those weird sensations that it was discovering so shortly after its “birth”. 😁
 
ProVobis said:
The Canon states “approved and received.” I wouldn’t call it received when then-Cardinal Ratzinger unofficially called the Novus Ordo a “fabrication.”
Click to expand...
It’s my understanding that in this context reception is about who it is received by not who it is received from. In general, reception by the Churches is itself proof of the legitimacy and holiness of a rite, custom, and even a doctrine. In this case, to hold a rite in contempt that the 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 “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 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.
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
liturgy rather than what the people of Rome spoke sixteen centuries ago . . .
Click to expand...
Only a filthy modernist heretic would want to have Mass in Greek…

True real actual catholics celebrate Mass only in furnished upper rooms, speaking in Aramaic, once a year on Passover.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top