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

[BobP123]

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.

According to a priest friend of mine, Quo Primum, which was based on Council of Trent decrees, actually codified the Canon of the Mass. And, as you state, though there were some changes in the last 400 years in the Mass, only one change was made in the Canon and that was by Pope John XXIII, where he added the name of St. Joseph to the communicantes prayer in 1962.

Most traditionalists I know, however, don’t feel as if anything was taken away from them by having made this change, although a purist might have grave problems with it.

 

[bear06]

Most traditionalists I know, however, don’t feel as if anything was taken away from them by having made this change, although a purist might have grave problems with it.

And thus lies the heart of the matter. It’s quite subjective. If one feels that there is a problem with it then there is and if one doesn’t feel that there is a problem with it, there isn’t.

The fact of the matter is that Quo Primum says what it says. If you’re going to apply it to one then you should apply it to all. One shouldn’t say that we think that this change was fine but that change was wrong.

Of course, I believe the fact that one Pope doesn’t bind another in matters of disciplines which would seem to the be view of the Magisterium and the past few Curias. We really on have two choiced to make. #1 Quo Primum binds all for all eternity or #2 Quo Primum was binding until another Pope loosed it. It says no additions or subtractions so I can’t see using the above argument of most don’t have a problem with the changes made. That’s not what it says.

 

[AJV]

According to a priest friend of mine, Quo Primum, which was based on Council of Trent decrees, actually codified the Canon of the Mass. And, as you state, though there were some changes in the last 400 years in the Mass, only one change was made in the Canon and that was by Pope John XXIII, where he added the name of St. Joseph to the communicantes prayer in 1962.

Some people do say that Quo Primum applies onyl to the Temporale, only to the Ordinary or only to the Canon. But, aside from the fact that that is no where found in the bull itself, in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Grande Munus he says:

Therefore, We decree that July 5 be set aside in the calendar of the universal Roman Church, as Pius IX ordained. On this day the feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius shall be celebrated annually with the office and mass proper to a double minor rite, as approved by the holy council…We order this to be established and fixed as written above, notwithstanding the constitutions of Pope St. Pius V and other apostolic documents on the reform of the breviary and the Roman Missal, or other statutes and customs – even very old ones – or anything else to the contrary.

Now obviously this is a very tiny change and probably even a very beneficial one for devotion, but the point is that he implicitly recognized that Quo Primum and Quod a nobis apply also to the sanctorale.

 

[BobP123]

Some people do say that Quo Primum applies onyl to the Temporale, only to the Ordinary or only to the Canon. But, aside from the fact that that is no where found in the bull itself, in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Grande Munus he says:
…
Now obviously this is a very tiny change and probably even a very beneficial one for devotion, but the point is that he implicitly recognized that Quo Primum and Quod a nobis apply also to the sanctorale.

Good research. And, if I may add, none of these were in violation of any of the decrees (or spirit ) of the Council of Trent.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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.

Certainly the extraordinary Magisterium only ever defines what has always been the faith of the Church, but when specifying dogma and doctrine it does sometimes define the faith in a way that has not always been obvious even to the most orthodox of teachers. For instance, the Common Doctor rejected the Immaculate Conception; this was not blameworthy on his part, and when he uttered his opinion it was a live, orthodox option that would only later be placed beyond the boundaries of Catholic theology. Similarly, before Trent there were various competing schemata concerning justification and the will’s cooperation with grace (IIRC there were at least four orthodox views on the matter), but the council took a definitive stand on the matter, relegating all but one of those views to the scrap heap of history. So there was a real need for a change in thinking among Catholics who had been and would remain orthodox if they had previously held one of the now unacceptable positions on justification. The canons of Trent were not all simply obvious to any good Catholic. They specified Catholic theology far more than it had previously been authoritatively articulated, meaning good Catholics could have to first be made aware of the documents of the council in order to hold fast entirely accurately to the Catholic faith.

 

[Genesis315]

I think this whole debate over Quo Primum demonstrates another instance where a Council has “failed” so to speak. The First Vatican Council, among other things, defined the dogma of papal infallibility–a dogma supposed to bring stability and clarity. But if there is one dogma of the Catholic Church where there is the most confusion, it is this one. People think it only applies to the two Marian dogmas, to only Bulls, to everything the pope says regarding faith and morals, to only things the pope says with word “define,” to only things the pope says with anathema (or shipwreck in the faith, etc.), to everyhting that comes out of the pope’s mouth or pen, to everything the one individual likes, but to nothing he doesn’t like, etc., etc. It’s this confusing thanks to–guess what–ambiguous labguage. Here’s a good study of the Council (it is in terms of Humae Vitae, but the study of Vatican I is the best I have ever seen with the clearest explanation of the dogma of infallibility.)

rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

As an aside, what is ironic about the whole Quo Primum debate, is that it was really what paved the way for Missale Romanum. Before Quo Primum, developments to the liturgy, with a few notable exceptions, came from the bottom up. Certain things would be added along the way, and the bishop and ultimately the Pope, would act like a gardnerer pruning away any undesirable growths judging what was the authentic work of the Holy Spirit. Along the way, more and more authority over the liturgy began beign exercised by the Holy See. With Quo Primum, the authority over the liturgy became completely concentrated in the Pope and Curia and any changes from then on came from the top down.

 

[BobP123]

Whoa! Hold on there. You’re moving too fast for me here.

I think this whole debate over Quo Primum demonstrates another instance where a Council has “failed” so to speak.

Trent was doctrinal, Quo Primum executed its decrees. The only failure I see is that Trent would ultimately become vulnerable (and possibly succumb) to the “spirit” of another council, 400 years later.

The First Vatican Council, among other things, defined the dogma of papal infallibility–a dogma supposed to bring stability and clarity.

Then why did many say that its work was never really completed?

But if there is one dogma of the Catholic Church where there is the most confusion, it is this one. People think it only applies to the two Marian dogmas, to only Bulls, to everything the pope says regarding faith and morals, to only things the pope says with word “define,” to only things the pope says with anathema (or shipwreck in the faith, etc.), to everyhting that comes out of the pope’s mouth or pen, to everything the one individual likes, but to nothing he doesn’t like, etc., etc. It’s this confusing thanks to–guess what–ambiguous labguage. Here’s a good study of the Council (it is in terms of Humae Vitae, but the study of Vatican I is the best I have ever seen with the clearest explanation of the dogma of infallibility.)

A non-sequitor here? How can it be that clear if has caused the most confusion here? Need I reread the above? What dogmas? What Bulls? What faith? What morals? Did you ever read Paul VI’s Progressio Populorum? Where those morals in line with Catholic teaching?

As an aside, what is ironic about the whole Quo Primum debate, is that it was really what paved the way for Missale Romanum.

There was a lot of causes and effects in this evolution, if you want to go there. Quo Primum was necessary in its rhetoric and tone to clarify and reinforce the decrees of Trent.

Before Quo Primum, developments to the liturgy, with a few notable exceptions, came from the bottom up.

Evidence please.

Certain things would be added along the way, and the bishop and ultimately the Pope, would act like a gardnerer pruning away any undesirable growths judging what was the authentic work of the Holy Spirit. Along the way, more and more authority over the liturgy began beign exercised by the Holy See. With Quo Primum, the authority over the liturgy became completely concentrated in the Pope and Curia and any changes from then on came from the top down.

In your opinion is/was this a good thing?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Whoa! Hold on there. You’re moving too fast for me here.

Trent was doctrinal, Quo Primum executed its decrees. The only failure I see is that Trent would ultimately become vulnerable (and possibly succumb) to the “spirit” of another council, 400 years later.

Hold on there. Trent was an ecumenical council, so both doctrinal and disciplinary. I don’t care too much about the Quo Primum debate, I just want to defend all the disciplinary measures of the council. Councils have always treated discipline alongside doctrine.

 

[BobP123]

Hold on there. Trent was an ecumenical council, so both doctrinal and disciplinary. I don’t care too much about the Quo Primum debate, I just want to defend all the disciplinary measures of the council. Councils have always treated discipline alongside doctrine.

I’ll leave the subject of ecumenical councils till later but I called Trent a doctrinal council because it taught doctrine. One would think that initially all the decrees at least carried the force of permanent church law if not divine law.

But, having said that, how much do you want to bet that those decrees which they later didn’t like later became mere disciplines, a formality I suppose necessary to change them? Seems to me that as time went on, the more to undermine Trent, the better. So what was Trent anyway, goalposts that the Church now uses to move back and forth, shorten or widen as its “magisterium” pleases? Certainly seems that way. Can’t even find the foul lines anymore, jeesh.

And when someone has the time, I wish he’d go through all the decrees of Trent, one by one, and mark off which ones are doctrinal and which ones are disciplinary and called such by whom and when and by whose authorization. Some of us may want to keep score.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Session XXIV
CHAPTER XX.
The manner of conducting causes, appertaining to the Ecclesiastical court, is prescribed. All causes belonging in any way whatever to the ecclesiastical court, even though they may relate to benefices, shall be taken cognizance of, in the first instance, before the Ordinaries of the places only; and shall be completely terminated within two years at the latest from the time that the suit was instituted: otherwise, at the expiration of that period, it shall be free for the parties, or for either of them, to have recourse to superior, but otherwise competent, judges, who shall take up the cause as it shall then stand, and shall take care that it be terminated with all possible despatch; nor, before that period, shall the causes be committed to any others (than the Ordinaries), nor be transferred therefrom; nor shall any appeals interposed by those parties be received by any superior judges whatsoever; nor shall any commission, or inhibition be issued by them, except upon a definitive sentence, or one that has the force thereof, and the grievance arising from which cannot be redressed by an appeal from that definitive sentence. From the above are to be excepted those causes, which, pursuant to the appointments of the canons, are to be tried before the Apostolic See, or those which the Sovereign Roman Pontiff shall, for an urgent and [Page 221] reasonable cause, judge fit to appoint, or to avocate, for his own hearing, by a special rescript under the signature of his Holiness signed with his own hand. …
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html

Discipline.

 

[BobP123]

Session XXIV
CHAPTER XX.

Discipline.

No anathema. Agreed.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Certainly the extraordinary Magisterium only ever defines what has always been the faith of the Church, but when specifying dogma and doctrine it does sometimes define the faith in a way that has not always been obvious even to the most orthodox of teachers. For instance, the Common Doctor rejected the Immaculate Conception; this was not blameworthy on his part, and when he uttered his opinion it was a live, orthodox option that would only later be placed beyond the boundaries of Catholic theology. Similarly, before Trent there were various competing schemata concerning justification and the will’s cooperation with grace (IIRC there were at least four orthodox views on the matter), but the council took a definitive stand on the matter, relegating all but one of those views to the scrap heap of history.

Right. The purpose of the council is the clarify and define the faith. Before a doctrine is defined there is freedom of opinion, to some extend. A good example is the one you gave - the immaculate conception. St. Thomas, at least when he wrote the Summa, taught that Mary was conceived in sin, the immediately sanctified. He was wrong by a split second, but he was wrong. At the time, the dogma had not been defined, and thus he did not have an infallible pronouncement to guide him.