Did the council of Trent take over a century to be implemented?

[AJV]

The neo-Galican missal was part of the Premonstratensian Rite which came from St. Norbert, not the Roman Rite. Since the missal used by the Premonstratensian Rite had existed for more than 200 years, its continued use was allowed.

There is no fixed neo-Gallican missal. Rather it is a family, usually of diocesan Uses. The term is most commonly employed to refer to the reformed missals of the 18th century, most commonly in France. The Premonstratensians had a reformed neo-Gallician rite which was introduced in the 18th century but it died out within a century and most reverted either to their own books (which continued with modifications) or the Roman ones.

The thing with the later neo-Gallican missals is that they adopted sometimes Jansenistic ideas.

It was specifically that in most dioceses the bishops, who had initially accepted, dumped the Roman missal and adopted these books. Those with existing Uses reformed theirs. But the books are not really Gallican: they are basically Roman with elaborations, greater temporale, more preference to Scripture, revived collects from older missals and things like that. Interesting, because many of the same features are present for the NO.

 

[AJV]

The neo-Galican missal was part of the Premonstratensian Rite which came from St. Norbert, not the Roman Rite. Since the missal used by the Premonstratensian Rite had existed for more than 200 years, its continued use was allowed.

There is no fixed neo-Gallican missal. Rather it is a family, usually of diocesan Uses. The term is most commonly employed to refer to the reformed missals of the 18th century, most commonly in France. Later the revision-tendency spread from France into Germany and the surrounding areas.The Premonstratensians had a reformed neo-Gallician rite which was introduced in the 18th century but it died out within a century and most reverted either to their own books (which continued with modifications) or the Roman ones.

The thing with the later neo-Gallican missals is that they adopted sometimes Jansenistic ideas.

It was specifically that in most dioceses the bishops, who had initially accepted, dumped the Roman missal and adopted these books. Those with existing Uses reformed theirs. But the books are not really Gallican: they are basically Roman with elaborations, greater temporale, more preference to Scripture, revived collects from older missals and things like that. Interesting, because many of the same features were present a little in the reform of 1911-13 and to a greater extent, are present for the NO.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

The neo-Galican missal was part of the Premonstratensian Rite which came from St. Norbert, not the Roman Rite. Since the missal used by the Premonstratensian Rite had existed for more than 200 years, its continued use was allowed.

There is no fixed neo-Gallican missal. Rather it is a family, usually of diocesan Uses. The term is most commonly employed to refer to the reformed missals of the 18th century, most commonly in France.

I could be mistaken here, but I thought the neo galican missal was a slightly modified version of the missal used in the Premonstratesian Rite, which was not subject to Quo Primum. The Canon was the same, but certain feast days, and prayers/readings were slightly midified.

 

[ncjohn]

I must say that I find it interesting and ironic that those who implemented the changes of Trent were the “reformers”, while those who fought those changes were the “traditionalists” of their day, many of them leaving the Church forever. The parallels to our own current situation are striking.

The plain and simple truth is that few people really like change, and even fewer like to be moved at all out of their comfort zone, continually chanting the mantra of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” What is usually not recognized is that is usually is broke, at least for most people, but we’ve just grown so accustomed to it and have adapted to it so well, that we’d rather continue with what we know than take a chance on something else.

There are indeed those for whom the"traditions" of Trent are best suited. But there are many others to whom God calls through other “traditions”. That Vatican II brought in new “traditions” that many identify with is not a bad thing, no matter how much some might want to complain about them. It was simply a recognition that for a large segment of the Church God was calling in a different way. Not a “better” way necessarily for everyone–which is why the “old” way needs to also be available–but a way in which many of us are just better able to understand and live out the gospel as we are called to.

Yes, Councils take time to implement. And yes, change is difficult and it takes time to find the correct balance. History has shown that there is always resistance, and that some will never accept that the Church can and will go on, and that She will find that balance necessary.

No age has ever had it perfect; there has been no “golden age” in the sense that the Church finally had it “right”. We are a pilgrim Church, and will always be on the move toward our final union with God. It sure would be nice if we could at least help each other out along the way, since we’re all on that same path, instead of thinking that we have different paths.

Peace,

 

[Uxor]

I don’t see the parallels to the changes of Trent with Vatican II. And I think it is just hopeful wishing on some people’s parts.

Protestants were excluded from the Council of Trent, decrees were enacted that put an end to crimes and abuses committed by church leaders, the Council defined and reaffirmed Catholic beliefs so that Catholics and Protestants knew what the Church taught. It showed the errors of Protestants and those that held different beliefs were cut off from the church. Strict laws for candidates of the priesthood. Immorality had declined in society, crimes committed by church leaders had stopped, semanaries began to flourish, evil behavior by church leaders was punished not tolerated, ended religous confusion. Catholic and Protestant beliefs were clearly distinguished.

.

 

[ncjohn]

I don’t see the parallels to the changes of Trent with Vatican II. And I think it is just hopeful wishing on some people’s parts.

The parallels aren’t to the changes. The parallels are to the attitudes of people affected by the councils.

As in the time of Trent, we have those who just refuse to acknowledge the council, or parts of it, and have cut themselves off from the Church, believing that their version of whatever issue is the ONLY version, and that they have access to the whole Truth, and that their version is the only valid “tradition”.

And as in the time of Trent, those who hold that only their tradition has validity decry those who abide by the Council as straying from the faith, be they clergy or laity.

And just as today we have the Popes trying to reconcile those who have separated themselves, then the Popes were trying to reconcile those who refused to submit to the changes of Trent.

Yes, the actual nature of the changes is different. But we have the fact that we are dealing with two valid councils, with the same results in how people are reacting to them. The great danger though is that if one claims that Vatican II is not inspired–or worse, is invalid–then one takes a position that one can pick and choose which Councils are valid and inspired, which leads us down a very rocky road indeed.

The Church will survive. And over time it will find the balance needed in guiding the faithful forward. It won’t be quickly enough for some, and will be too quickly for others. Some will reject the changes and flee; others will be drawn in because of the changes. Such has always been the nature of the Church.

Peace,

 

[AJV]

I don’t see the parallels to the changes of Trent with Vatican II. And I think it is just hopeful wishing on some people’s parts.

Protestants were excluded from the Council of Trent,

 

[Uxor]

Kind of.

.

What do you mean kind of?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The parallels aren’t to the changes. The parallels are to the attitudes of people affected by the councils.

As in the time of Trent, we have those who just refuse to acknowledge the council, or parts of it, and have cut themselves off from the Church, believing that their version of whatever issue is the ONLY version, and that they have access to the whole Truth, and that their version is the only valid “tradition”.

I’m sorry to say that you are totally confused. What was quoted in post #17, was written for the purpose of deceiving people into believe the exact contrary of what actually transpired, in order to discredit those today who are holding fast to what the Church has always taught. It was so obvious that I didn’t think any would fall for it. I guess I was wrong.

The council of Trent did not attempt to change the Church’s doctrines or practice, which is what has happened since Vatican II, under the name of “developement” and “reform”.

The reformers during the time of Trent were the Protestant heretics. It was these “reformers”, so-called, whose teachings and practices were condemned by the council of Trent, with the traditional practices and docrines defined. Abuses that had crept in were condemned, and the traditional practices (which the heretics rejected) were reaffirmed while the novel practices of the heretics were condemned. For example, the heretics began to say the “mass” in the vernacular. That was condemend at Trent and the Traditional practice of non-vernacular Masses was upheld. The heretics also began to downplay the sacrificial nature of the mass. This too was condemned and the traditional teaching upheld. The heretics also began to employ communion under both forms. The Church responded by defending the traditional practice of communion under one form for the faithful, and condened anyone who said both forms were necessary.

As you may have noticed, all of these “reforms” of the 16th century heretics, which were condemned at Trent in favor of the Traditional practice, are now present in the Novus Ordo Mass.

Contrary to what many confused Catholics may think, councils DO NOT CHANGE THE CHURCH. They condemn errors and define dogmas.

I beleive it was Pope Gregory, in Mirari Vos, who condemned the idea that Church needs to be “reformed”. And in the encyclical Pascendi, Pius X condemned the modernists who, he said, sought to reform the Church based on their modern principles:

Pops Pius X: “The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith… rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things” (Acts xx. 30), “vain talkers and seducers” (Tit. i. 10), “erring and driving into error” (2 Tim. iii. 13)… Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church”.

The errors Pius X condemned in that encyclical have been responsible for all of the erroneous “reforms” that have taken place since Vatican II.

And as at the time of Trent, those who hold that only their tradition has validity decry those who abide by the Council as straying from the faith, be they clergy or laity.

The only ones who rejected Trent were the Protestants whose “traditions” were not traditions, but novelties.

And just as today we have the Popes trying to reconcile those who have separated themselves, then the Popes were trying to reconcile those who refused to submit to the changes of Trent.

Again, Trent did not change the Church. That is not what councils do. Trent condemned the errors that originated less than 30 years earliers with Luther and the other herertics, so that the Catholics would know what was true and what was false.

And the Pope at Trent was not trying to reconcile anything with the heretics. He condemned their false teachings, placing them under an anathema. The Pope and council were concerned primarily with protecting the faith, not “reaching out” to the heretics who had rejected the faith.

 

[ncjohn]

I’m sorry to say that you are totally confused.

There may be someone confused, but I don’t think it’s me here. I don’t even close to pretend to have all the answers, but I have put enough study into Church history to have a pretty good working knowledge of what was occuring.

It is documented history that those who refused to submit to the propositions of Trent, especially the new missal, considered themselves “traditionalists” and true to the faith of the Church. And further that they considered those trying to implement the tenets of Trent, including the Pope and clergy, to be outside the faith. These were Catholics who had not been part of the reformation but rejected parts of what Trent taught and codified.

And the Pope at Trent was not trying to reconcile anything with the heretics. He condemned their false teachings, placing them under an anathema. The Pope and council were concerned primarily with protecting the faith, not “reaching out” to the heretics who had rejected the faith.

I never said anything about heretics, or what the Pope was doing AT Trent. My comments referred to the Pope’s and the Church’s efforts to reconcile those who refused to submit to Trent, especially regarding the missal, and especially the French. It parallels very clearly the efforts of the post Vatican 2 Popes, especially JP 2 and Benedict, to reconcile the SSPX and other such groups.

So no, the “protestants” were NOT the only ones who rejected Trent, although some might consider them protestants to the extent that they protested what Trent taught. Many were ultimately reconciled, but many stuck to their contentions–much as the SSPX has so far–and remained outside of communion with the Church.

And yes, those who participated in and implemented Trent were considered “reformers”, thus the term “counter-reformation”. There were in fact many reforms made to the Church as a result of Trent, many of them actually things that the “reformers” had rightfully pointed out.

I don’t disagree with your comments about what Trent was doing, but it might be a good idea to review history and terminology, and read closer what I said, before proclaiming people to be “confused”, as there are indeed direct parallels between the two councils regarding reception and implementation attempts, and how different groups thought of each other.

Peace,

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

It is documented history that those who refused to submit to the propositions of Trent, especially the new missal, considered themselves “traditionalists” and true to the faith of the Church

Evidence please.

And further that they considered those trying to implement the tenets of Trent, including the Pope and clergy, to be outside the faith.

Who were these groups?

These were Catholics who had not been part of the reformation but rejected parts of what Trent taught and codified.

If you are saying that there were some individual Catholics who were leaning towards agreeing with the Protestant heretics, and who then sided with the Protestants against Trent, that makes perfect sense. The split was just taking place and there were almost certainly Catholics with Protestant tendencies.

The purose of Trent was to condemn the erroneous ideas, and “reforms”, of the Protestants so Catholics who wanted to know the truth would know what to believe. Any “catholics” who were actually entangled in the errors of the reformers, were exposed by the council. That is the purpose of councils - to define the truth and condemn errors for those who want to know the truth.

But if there were Catholics siding with the reformers, they were not hold fast to the teachings and paractice of the Catholic Church, but rather were siding with the novel reforms of the heretics.

That is the difference. Those today who are called Traditional Catholics are simply holding to what the Church has always taught, and rejecting what the Church has alway rejected. It is the exact contrary to what the Protestants and all other heretics have done.

My comments referred to the Pope’s and the Church’s efforts to reconcile those who refused to submit to Trent, especially regarding the missal, and especially the French.

What evidence is there of this?

And yes, those who participated in and implemented Trent were considered “reformers”, thus the term “counter-reformation”.

They were not reformers, they were countering the “reformers” and holding fast to what the Church had always taught… just like the Traditional Catholics do today.

The Traditional Catholics are the counter reformers of our day. They are countering the erroneous reforms being promoted by Catholics with Protestant tendencies:

Cardinal Ratzinger: “A sizeable party of Catholic liturgists seems to have practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate. It is only against this background that the effective denial of the authority of Trent, that the bitterness of the struggle against allowing the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal, after the liturgical reform, can be understood.”

These “liturgist”, who have been allowed almost free reign, are the ones who have been responsible for a majority of the “reforms” found in the Novus Ordo; and it is these modern day “reformers” who the counter-reformation Traditionalists are resisiting; because the Traditional Catholics can see clearly that these reforms are harmful to the Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.”

 

[ncjohn]

Evidence please.

There are many books out there on Church history.

If you are saying that there were some individual Catholics who were leaning towards agreeing with the Protestant heretics, and who then sided with the Protestants against Trent, that makes perfect sense.

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying, again as is documented in the many books on Church history, that many who considered themselves to be within the Church, rejected parts of what was codified at Trent, along with those who tried to implement it. Over time, many of those came to agreement, but some never did.

The purose of Trent was to condemn the erroneous ideas, and “reforms”, of the Protestants so Catholics who wanted to know the truth would know what to believe.

That is true as far as it goes, but there were many reforms of practices within the Church also because of abuses that had been taking place. I have not said or implied that doctrine was changed, only that “reforms” were made in the way things were practiced. Again though, I am not addressing the content of the Council, but the parallels in the implementation and the division that occured between those who wanted things as the Councils proposed them and those who fought any changes.

That is the difference. Those today who are called Traditional Catholics are simply holding to what the Church has always taught, and rejecting what the Church has alway rejected.

No, actually those that call themselves “traditionalists”, at least here, are those who specifically cling to the TLM as being superior (while mostly rejecting the current normative Mass), with some other minor issues. There are many orthodox Catholics whom the self-proclaimed “traditionalists” do not consider “traditional”. There is very little in the division–now as then–that has to do with doctrinal disagreements. Some of the “traditionalists” operate from a standpoint of “preference” to the older tradition; others, however reject anything outside of that older tradition. Again, the parallel to Trent is strong.

They were not reformers, they were countering the “reformers” and holding fast to what the Church had always taught… just like the Traditional Catholics do today.

Again, read the history and how the different groups viewed each other.

Traditional Catholics are the counter reformers of our day. They are countering the erroneous reforms being promoted by Catholics with Protestant tendencies:

That is the way such groups have always viewed themselves. Some do so while staying faithful to the Church. Others do not and part communion with the Church. It is the same now as it was then, which is the whole point of what I’ve been saying.

When the “countering” comes to rejecting the teachings of a valid council of the Church, one is no longer a “reformer”. As I said previously, if one gets to reject Vatican II, then picking and choosing between councils is up for grabs, and that is a road the Church says we can’t go down.

Again, I am not talking about those who are teaching things outside what the Council proclaimed. I am talking about those who are within what the Church has sanctioned yet are rejected by the “traditionalists” who believe that what the Council taught was either inferior or outright wrong.

The Church will find balance, and the Church will survive. How much further division will occur is anyone’s guess, and that is sad indeed.

Having made and explained the point I was attempting to make, I will bow out at this time.

Peace,

 

[Uxor]

.

Contrary to what many confused Catholics may think, councils DO NOT CHANGE THE CHURCH. They condemn errors and define dogmas.

Again, Trent did not change the Church. That is not what councils do. Trent condemned the errors that originated less than 30 years earliers with Luther and the other herertics, so that the Catholics would know what was true and what was false.

And the Pope at Trent was not trying to reconcile anything with the heretics. He condemned their false teachings, placing them under an anathema. The Pope and council were concerned primarily with protecting the faith, not “reaching out” to the heretics who had rejected the faith.

Exactly!

 

[Genesis315]

The seminary system was a change to the Church.

 

[Genesis315]

Here are all the General Councils:

piar.hu/councils/

Most, but not all, deal with definitive rulings on a doctrinal controversy, but almost all also deal with reforming ecclesiastical disciplines and policies.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

ncjohn:

When the “countering” comes to rejecting the teachings of a valid council of the Church, one is no longer a “reformer”.

Let’s just stick with the Mass for a moment. Vatican II specifically stated that the canon of the Mass was to remain in Latin. Who is being faithful to Vatican II on that point?

Vatican II said Gregorian chant was to continue, yet it has disapeared in the average Novus Ordo Mass. Who is being faithful to the council on this point?

Vatican II said nothing about communion in the hand, which was not allowed at the time of the council, yet it is the norm in the Novus Ordo today. Why?

The priest has alway faced east at Mass (in the same direction as the faithful). Since Vatican II said nothing about changing this, why do Priest at the Novus Ordo face the people? Why have the Novus Ordo Priest begun facing the people like the Protestant ministers? Please show me where Vatican II called for this.

As I said previously, if one gets to reject Vatican II, then picking and choosing between councils is up for grabs, and that is a road the Church says we can’t go down.

Just curious how you will answer this: What do Traditional Catholics reject with respect to the teachings of Vatican II?

Again, I am not talking about those who are teaching things outside what the Council proclaimed.

People who teach things outside what the council proclaimed? Do you mean those who teach that the Mass should be in the vernacular, with the priest facing the people, giving communion in the hand under both forms to those who stand, while profane music is played? Is that what you mean? It must be because none of that was called for at Vatican II.

 

[Uxor]

The seminary system was a change to the Church.

To put an end to immoral men who became protestant leaders after being ordained. And it was the French Vincentians and Sulpicians who also staffed semanaries.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

To put an end to immoral men who became protestant leaders after being ordained. And it was the French Vincentians and Sulpicians who also staffed semanaries.

Give me a break on that one - the immoral men who should have been weeded out or reformed by a seminary system also became popes, also promoted indulgences in improper ways or twisted canon law to their own ends - leading common folk to support Protestants for material reasons, also lived fat off of Church property at the expense of the poor, also abused the Mass in incredibly grave ways, etc. Seminary education certainly would have prevented many of the more ignorant priest from turning coat, but the seminaries were far more extensively envisioned than just to prevent future heresy. And let’s not forget that even high levels of education in the faith did not weed out Luther, Karlstadt, and Hubmaier (for starters) - all doctors of theology.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I have heard similar comments numerous times by those who attempt to explain the chaos that has erupted since Vatican II as being the normal course of events that follow a council.

My question is: what are some examples of the decrees that it took over 100 years to implement?

Since this claim is made so often, there certainly must be numerous websites that have gathered a list of these decrees with examples of how they were not implemented for 100 years. I did a google search and couldn’t find any of them.

So, my question for those who make this claim over and over again is this: what evidence is there to support the claim? I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but I haven’t seen it.

And if there is no evidence to support the claim, why is it brought forward so often?

Each bishop was responsible for implementing the decrees of Trent in his specific diocese. Therefore, in order to train the priests and other clergy in the new decrees of Trent, Trent had to be translated and administered in the schools and seminaries in their dioceses and then at the parish level which culminated with the Missale Romanum. It probably took over a century to fully implement Trent.

 

[Uxor]

Give me a break on that one - the immoral men who should have been weeded out or reformed by a seminary system also became popes, also promoted indulgences in improper ways or twisted canon law to their own ends - leading common folk to support Protestants for material reasons, also lived fat off of Church property at the expense of the poor, also abused the Mass in incredibly grave ways, etc. Seminary education certainly would have prevented many of the more ignorant priest from turning coat, but the seminaries were far more extensively envisioned than just to prevent future heresy. And let’s not forget that even high levels of education in the faith did not weed out Luther, Karlstadt, and Hubmaier (for starters) - all doctors of theology.

I’m talking after the Council of Trent.