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

[Semper_Fi_1]

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?

The canon of the Mass has remained in Latin and Latin remains the official language of VII. Some countries have been given indults to have the Mass in the Vernacular similar to Croatia being given an indult to having it in the vernacular pre-Vatican II.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I’m talking after the Council of Trent.

Your post gave me the impression that the “change” to seminaries was only implemented to prevent future heretical disasters - “to put an end to immoral men who became protestant leaders after being ordained.” Since I assume seminaries weren’t meant to kill the existing reformers (we had princes for that) I thought you meant their erection was to teach future priests to be smart enough not to become heretics. I was pointing out that seminaries had goals that needed accomplished whether manifest heresy was a problem or not, goals that had been advocated for centuries by saints seeking orthodox reform.

(And yes, I knew you were talking about after Trent; what was that supposed to clear up?)

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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

What new decrees of Trent did the clergy need to be tained in? Can you list a few of these new decrees?

With respect to the doctrinal decrees, there was nothing to implement. They were implemented when the Pope ratified them. They were simply a formal dogmatic decree condemning the modern errors and affirming what Catholic had always believed.

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.

How did the decrees of Trent culminate in the Missal of Pius V?

Trent did not change anything in the Mass. It condemned the erroroneous reforms of the Protestants, such as vernacular only masses, and downplaying the sacrificial nature of the mass. It also condemned the Protestants who claimed that, in order to receive the full Christ, communion should be given under both forms, as well as those who complained about part of the mass being said in low tones, etc.

Trent did not call for any changes in the Mass; it condemned the changes being introduced by the reformers.

Pius V finally organized one unified Missal for all Catholics of the Western Rite to use in order to eliminate any Protestantized contamination that may have crept into Catholic worship since the time of the “reformation”. He allowed the continued use of any missals that were more than 200 years old since these would be free from any of the modern errors being introduced by the heretics of that day.

The purpose of the Missal of Pius V was to protect the Catholic Mass from the liturgical “reforms” being introduced by the heretics. Yet these same “reforms” are now present in the Novus Ordo Mass. Vatican II did not call for them, but they are there none-the-less.

 

[AJV]

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

Nope. What is condemned was specifically

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; or, that 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.

Now I’m sure this will look as if I’m legalistically reading an interpretation into the Canon but actually this is exactly why the final draft of the Canon was written in this way. Because firstly several Fathers spoke out against the Latin-only triligualist position of de Santis and that Bishop (I’ve forgotten his name temporarily it began with ‘G’… some French name ) causing this canon to be rewritten from a earlier draft proposed, and secondly the proposition treated, to which the canon responds was whether the rite of the Roman Church was damnable, and not effacious or valid as was held by Calvin in the “Tract on the Supper of the Lord” since it was not in the vulgar tongue. This is an obvious response because Mass said in any language is both valid and effacious. And secondly they did not outlaw the vernacular. Specifically it says “not expendient” as goes on to say that it shoudl be explained. This too was a concession to the pro-vernacular argumetns made which drew upon the text in Corinthians. And moreover St. Pius V later gave permission for the Mass in Chinese.

The heretics also began to downplay the sacrificial nature of the mass.

They didn’t downplay it…they denied it.

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.

And as I’m sure you know, even while upholding the doctrine of Christ whole and entire under one species, they still allowed that communion would be distributed in both kinds.

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.

What precisely is wrong with communion in both kinds? Trent allowed it while upholding the doctrine. The NO does the same. It is not of obligation.

As to the vernacular: how is it that Pius XI could say that the vernacular was something that was discussable? If it was immutable how could it be discussable?

 

[AJV]

Trent did not call for any changes in the Mass; it condemned the changes being introduced by the reformers.

Actually a commision established by Trent (in 1562) produced a list of things that they felt needed to be reformed in the Mass which can be seen in their drafts: farcing of texts, apocryphal texts substituing Sacred Scripture*, employing fixed number of candles and other like items of supersitition, multiple Masses, dry Masses, apologiae (private prayers of the priest) run riot, devotional gestures also, the proleptic references at the Offertory, and the multiple signs of the cross at the Canon after the Consecration, as well as regarding as unsuitable certain texts still found in the Missal of 1570

*Both these were fixed in the 1570 missal which threw out a number of unsuitable texts and prose. However non Scriptural verses still replace those of Scripture for the Masses’ of certain saints, particularly the BVM

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

For example, the heretics began to say the “mass” in the vernacular. That was condemend at Trent

Nope. What is condemned was specifically:

Trent: 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; or, that 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."

Why did you start by saying “nope” . What did I say different than what you quoted?

What precisely is wrong with communion in both kinds?

Did I give my opinion, or did I simply say what the council of Trent taught?

But, do you find it at all interesting that today, since the inroduction of communion under both kinds, a lot of Catholic feel as though they are missing out if they don’t receive under both forms? I have heard people call into Catholic answers with this exact concern. They felt as though they were missing out by not receiving under both forms.

As to the vernacular: how is it that Pius XI could say that the vernacular was something that was discussable? If it was immutable how could it be discussable?

The language is disciplinary, not doctrinal. As such, it could be discussed, just as it would be acceptable to discussed a married priesthood. And even ArchBishop Lefebvre The Great (hey, why not?) was in favor of incorporating some vernacular into the Mass - not into the canon, but into the prayers at the foot of the altar and some of the readings.

Now, don’t blame me for quoting the Council of Trent and showing that the Novus Ordo Mass has employed the same “reforms” that were condemned at that council.

If you don’t like what the Council of Trent taught, then say so; and if you think the Protestant heretics were just a little ahead of their time, then say so.

 

[AJV]

Why did you start by saying “nope” What did I say different than what you quoted?

That Mass in the vernacular was condemned.

I didn’t say anything was wrong with it. But, do you find it at all interesting that today a lot of Catholic feel as though they are missing out if they don’t receive under both forms? I have heard people call into Catholic answers with this exact concern. They felt as though they were missing out by not receiving under both forms.

Teach them.

The language is disciplinary, not doctrinal. As such, it could be discussed, just as acceptable to discussed a married priesthood. And even ArchBishop Lefebvre The Great (hey, why not?) was in favor of incorporating some vernacular into the Mass - not into the canon, but into the prayers at the foot of the altar and some of the readings.

Now, don’t blame me for quoting the Council of Trent and showing that the Novus Ordo Mass has employed the same “reforms” that were condemned at that council.

No blame.

That is just the point: what was condemned was the idea that non-vernacular, sotto voce, and so forth invalidated the Mass. All the Canons were formulated with respect to that dealing both with Calvin’s tract, which went so far as to call the practises sinful, and based on Luther’s Babylonian Captivity. None of the canons say “The Mass not sotto voce is condemned” or “the use of the vulgar topngue is condemned” What they say is “If any one says that the Roman Rite in which the …is to be condemned…is contrary to the instituion of Christ”

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

Why did you start by saying “nope”. What did I say different than what you quoted?

That Mass in the vernacular was condemned.

Council of Trent: “If anyone says that… the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only… let him be anathema”.

That is just the point: what was condemned was the idea that non-vernacular, sotto voce, and so forth invalidated the Mass.

I don’t think that the vernacular inalidates the Mass, and I have never heard of anyone who did.

None of the canons say “The Mass not sotto voce is condemned” or “the use of the vulgar tongue is condemned” What they say is “If any one says that the Roman Rite in which the …is to be condemned…is contrary to the instituion of Christ”

I am going to try to end this by agreeing with you. If you are saying that the Church has never stated that the Mass must be said sotto voce, then I agree. If you are saying that a Mass with some vernacular (such as in the Gospel and Epistle readings) would not be a bad thing, I would agree.

But if you are saying that the Church has not placed under anathema anyone who says “the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only” (Council of Trent, Session XXII), then I will have to respectfully disagree.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Trent did not change anything in the Mass. It condemned the erroroneous reforms of the Protestants, such as vernacular only masses, and downplaying the sacrificial nature of the mass. It also condemned the Protestants who claimed that, in order to receive the full Christ, communion should be given under both forms, as well as those who complained about part of the mass being said in low tones, etc.

Trent did not call for any changes in the Mass; it condemned the changes being introduced by the reformers. tect the Catholic Mass from the liturgical “reforms” being introduced by the heretics. Yet these same “reforms” are now present in the Novus Ordo Mass. Vatican II did not call for them, but they are there none-the-less.

It most certainly did. The main goal of Trent was to unify the Roman Rite because there were many variations of the pre-Trent Mass. Every order had their own version and it was different from locality to locality.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Why did you start by saying “nope” . What did I say different than what you quoted?

Did I give my opinion, or did I simply say what the council of Trent taught?

But, do you find it at all interesting that today, since the inroduction of communion under both kinds, a lot of Catholic feel as though they are missing out if they don’t receive under both forms? I have heard people call into Catholic answers with this exact concern. They felt as though they were missing out by not receiving under both forms.

The language is disciplinary, not doctrinal. As such, it could be discussed, just as it would be acceptable to discussed a married priesthood. And even ArchBishop Lefebvre The Great (hey, why not?) was in favor of incorporating some vernacular into the Mass - not into the canon, but into the prayers at the foot of the altar and some of the readings.

Now, don’t blame me for quoting the Council of Trent and showing that the Novus Ordo Mass has employed the same “reforms” that were condemned at that council.

If you don’t like what the Council of Trent taught, then say so; and if you think the Protestant heretics were just a little ahead of their time, then say so.

Okay, either Vatican II was pastoral or it was dogmatic (according to a lot of “traditionalists”). I keep hearing arguments from “traditionalists” that because Vatican II was pastoral, the decrees of Vatican II don’t need to be assented to. Now, when it comes to the Novus Ordo it’s different. It’s one or the other? And on top of that, there is no such thing as a “pastoral ecumenical council”, even if Vatican II contained no anathemas we must still assent to it as a valid ecumenical council of the Church.

I don’t like the condescending attitude on these forums which calls Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Protestants basically. Ya’ll can’t get your arguments straight.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

It most certainly did. The main goal of Trent was to unify the Roman Rite because there were many variations of the pre-Trent Mass. Every order had their own version and it was different from locality to locality.

If you mean the goal of the Missal of Pius V was to unify the Latin Rite by having a single Missal for all to use, then I agree.

What I said is that the council of Trent did not call for any changes in the Mass. What it did was condemned the liturgical novelties and erroneous beliefs with regard to the Mass that the Protestants introduces.

The Missal of Pius V was not a new Mass. It was, in a sense, the final phase of a very gradual and organic process of growth. The Mass was, for the most part, unchanged for about 1,000 years.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Okay, either Vatican II was pastoral or it was dogmatic (according to a lot of “traditionalists”).

Let’s let the Pope who closed the council answer this for us:

Paul VI: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is knwn by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March, 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility” (Pope Paus VI, General Audience, Jan. 12, 1966).

There’s the answer from the Pope himself. The council was pastoral and did not engage the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium.

I keep hearing arguments from “traditionalists” that because Vatican II was pastoral, the decrees of Vatican II don’t need to be assented to.

They need to be assented to, unless they teach something that has been condemned previously by the Church.

Traditional Catholic accept all that Vatican II taught, unless it has already been condemened.

Now, when it comes to the Novus Ordo it’s different. It’s one or the other?

I don’t know what you mean?

And on top of that, there is no such thing as a “pastoral ecumenical council”

See above quote from Paul VI

I don’t like the condescending attitude on these forums which calls Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Protestants basically.

I think those who you are talking about do not consider the Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo as basically Protestants. They consider the Novus Ordo itself as basically Protestant. Don’t confuse the arguments against the Protestantization of the Novus Ordo mass to be directed towards those who attend it.

Many dislike the Novus Ordo mass, but attend because they have no other choice; and other feel like they are being obedient by “suffer through” Sunday Mass.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

There’s the answer from the Pope himself. The council was pastoral and did not engage the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium.

Paul VI never called it a “pastoral ecumenical council”. There’s only one type of ecumenical council, the type which needs to be assented to by all the Church Faithful whether it defines anything as dogmatic or not.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The Missal of Pius V was not a new Mass. It was, in a sense, the final phase of a very gradual and organic process of growth. The Mass was, for the most part, unchanged for about 1,000 years.

Missale Romanum unified the Mass of the Roman Rite for the first time in the history of the Church. You can argue that the Mass was unchanged for almost 1,000 years but that simply is untrue. There were wide variations from some dioceses to dioceses and order to order which was the main reason the Vatican thought it necessary to issue a mainstream Missal so there could be as little variations as possible. You can make general statements such as “the Mass of Paul VI was the final step in years of organic growth” but what did it have to grow from if it didn’t change for 1,000 years as you stated to begin with?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Missale Romanum unified the Mass of the Roman Rite for the first time in the history of the Church. You can argue that the Mass was unchanged for almost 1,000 years but that simply is untrue. There were wide variations from some dioceses to dioceses and order to order which was the main reason the Vatican thought it necessary to issue a mainstream Missal so there could be as little variations as possible. You can make general statements such as “the Mass of Paul VI was the final step in years of organic growth” but what did it have to grow from if it didn’t change for 1,000 years as you stated to begin with?

You are disagreeing with me here, but I don’t disagree with you (much). I agree that there was some varaition in the prayers, etc, in the Mass; and that it was the intent of Pius V to unify the Church by creating one Missal for all to use. His intent was also to protect the Mass, and keep the then wide-spread errors of the Protestants from creeping in.

The canon of the Mass was virtually the same in all diocese, and had been since the time of Pope Gregory the Great, but there was some variation in the readings and prayers.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happeneing was quite normal. The prevous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in conection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, afe four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new misssal. But the historical truth of the matter is different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, which is the normal thing as history developes over the course of centuries… It was a continial process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed, There is no such thing as a ‘Missal of Pius V’ created by Pius V himself.”

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The canon of the Mass was virtually the same in all diocese, and had been since the time of Pope Gregory the Great, but there was some variation in the readings and prayers.

Yes, Pope Gregory the Great reformed the Western liturgy, but if there were no variations can you explain the existence of the Mozarabic rite, the Sarum Use, the Gallican rite, etc?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stick to the topic. Don’t stray into comparing the TLM with the NOM or I will have to close the thread. Thanks everyone.

 

[parvenu74]

Please stick to the topic. Don’t stray into comparing the TLM with the NOM or I will have to close the thread. Thanks everyone.

Just curious: what are the guidelines for meriting an off-topic warning versus a sudden lock-down without a chance for participants to steer the discussion back on track?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

The canon of the Mass was virtually the same in all diocese, and had been since the time of Pope Gregory the Great, but there was some variation in the readings and prayers.

Yes, Pope Gregory the Great reformed the Western liturgy, but if there were no variations can you explain the existence of the Mozarabic rite, the Sarum Use, the Gallican rite, etc?

I said the canon was virtually unchanged, while there was some variation in the prayers and readings. The only mistake I made is in saying “virtually unchanged”. It was completely unchanged. The canon of the Mass remained exactly the same until the middle of the 20th century.

Newadvent.org: "Since the seventh century our Canon has [the Canon of the Latin Rite] remained unchanged. It is to St. Gregory I (590-604) the great organiser of all the Roman Liturgy, that tradition ascribes its final revision and arrangement. …

“No pope has added to or changed the Canon since St. Gregory” says Benedict XIV (De SS. Missæ Sacr., 162).

newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm

 

[AJV]

I said the canon was virtually unchanged, while there was some variation in the prayers and readings. The only mistake I made is in saying “virtually unchanged”. It was completely unchanged. The canon of the Mass remained exactly the same until the middle of the 20th century.

No you were right with virtually unchanged.