Does Quo Primum state that the Mass cannot be changed away from the Triditine?

[curlycool89]

The texts of the Mass may not be doctrinal (I’m not saying that they’re not) but they certainly fall under Lex Credendi; this isn’t a simple removal of Friday meat abstinence. Now that would be discipline (or rather, lack of it).

But neither the prayers themselves nor the structure itself is dogmatic or doctrinal. Taken together they form what we now recognize as the Mass, but the individual pieces can be changed* or even rearranged.

*The 1 exception is the Consecration. Within the Roman Rite it’s been set forever now and won’t change. Other ancient prayers like the Our Father, Gloria, Creeds, and Sanctus are similarly set.

 

[ProVobis]

The texts were not changed that dramatically, as I understand. Some phraseology changed and supporting clauses added or removed, but the core text and structure is unchanged according to my observation.

This is true for the Latin texts. However, it’s been admitted that many of the translations did not follow their meanings, thus affecting Catholic beliefs. And it goes much beyond “for you and for all.” Lex Credendi.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Right here is the Papal Encyclical, Quo Primum.

“…We order and enjoin that **nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, **nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.”

Oh, well that is a VERY grave penalty indeed. Wouldn’t want to get Pius V displeased, now do we?

 

[pnewton]

The texts of the Mass may not be doctrinal (I’m not saying that they’re not) but they certainly fall under Lex Credendi; this isn’t a simple removal of Friday meat abstinence. Now that would be discipline (or rather, lack of it).

To me, this answers the point you made earlier about “This is my Body. This is my Blood.” I do not see a necessity that these statements be considered disciplinary, as they are the summit of the Mass, what the Mass is. The things that changed forty years ago were not spot on central to what Mass is.

 

[pnewton]

Oh, well that is a VERY grave penalty indeed. Wouldn’t want to get Pius V displeased, now do we?

I think that this was stated under the penalty of his displeasure, and taken in context of what he was trying to accomplish in unifying the Mass, we see that even he had not intent to bind future popes. Surely not Pope since has taken the statement to mean they were forbidden from changing anything, not matter how minor.

 

[ProVobis]

But neither the prayers themselves nor the structure itself is dogmatic or doctrinal. Taken together they form what we now recognize as the Mass, but the individual pieces can be changed* or even rearranged.

What about the DOCTRINAL declaration of Session 22 of the Council of Trent?

thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm

Who allowed the “silent” parts of the Mass to be said out loud, with a microphone yet? If the silent parts of the Mass are doctrinal, how can they be disciplinary as well?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

. Surely not Pope since has taken the statement to mean they were forbidden from changing anything, not matter how minor.

It cannot mean that nothing can be changed. New saints could be added to the calendar. A strict reading of Quo Primum would even forbid that.

 

[SonCatcher]

What about the DOCTRINAL declaration of Session 22 of the Council of Trent?

thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm

Who allowed the “silent” parts of the Mass to be said out loud, with a microphone yet? If the silent parts of the Mass are doctrinal, how can they be disciplinary as well?

What “silent” parts? What necessitates their silence?

 

[ProVobis]

What “silent” parts? What necessitates their silence?

Thanks for asking. It seems Trent is quite clear on that matter.

CHAPTER V.

On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone.

 

[bilop]

What about the DOCTRINAL declaration of Session 22 of the Council of Trent?

thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm

Who allowed the “silent” parts of the Mass to be said out loud, with a microphone yet? If the silent parts of the Mass are doctrinal, how can they be disciplinary as well?

There are no “silent” parts. If you ever serve at a TLM, you will hear all the prayers.

There are parts that the priest says in a low voice (e.g. most of the Canon), but he must speak the words out loud. It is illicit to simply read the prayers but not speak them.

God Bless

 

[ProVobis]

There are no “silent” parts. If you ever serve at a TLM, you will hear all the prayers.

There are parts that the priest says in a low voice (e.g. most of the Canon), but he must speak the words out loud. It is illicit to simply read the prayers but not speak them.

God Bless

You are correct on this. Whisper-level decibel levels would suffice for speaking in a low tone, I would think.

 

[SonCatcher]

Thanks for asking. It seems Trent is quite clear on that matter.

The rest of the chapter reads:
She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

Thus, buy changing the tone of voice, in addition to use of incense, vestments, etc., the participants are reminded of the greater mystery in action among them. It isn’t to shield their ears at all but to encourage them to pay greater attention.

Therefore, it seems they are listing an example from the contemporary practice rather than prescribing one.

 

[ProVobis]

Thus, buy changing the tone of voice, in addition to use of incense, vestments, etc., the participants are reminded of the greater mystery in action among them. It isn’t to shield their ears at all but to encourage them to pay greater attention.

Among other things, yes.

So what do you think the (unchangeable) doctrine is here exactly which is the header of the document? (I trust this is a good translation.) Just asking.

DOCTRINA DE SACRIFICIO MISSÆ

De missæ ceremoniis et ritibus.

Cumque natura hominum ea sit, ut non facile queat sine adminiculis exterioribus ad rerum divinarum meditationem sustolli, propterea pia mater Ecclesia ritus quosdam, ut scilicet quædam summissa voce, alia vero elatiore, in missa pronunciarentur, instituit. Cerimonias item, adhibuit, ut mysticas benedictiones, lumina, thymiamata, vestes, aliaque id genus multa ex apostolica disciplina et traditione, quo et majestas tanti sacrificii commendaretur, et mentes fidelium per hæc visibilia religionis et pietatis signa ad rerum altissimarum, quæ in hoc sacrificio latent, contemplationem excitarentur.

DOCTRINE ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he can not easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit, that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

 

[ProVobis]

I think that this was stated under the penalty of his displeasure, and taken in context of what he was trying to accomplish in unifying the Mass, we see that even he had not intent to bind future popes. Surely not Pope since has taken the statement to mean they were forbidden from changing anything, not matter how minor.

I’m not disagreeing with you, but surely there had to have been some lasting purpose to the document. Don’t forget the Council of Trent already had tried to standardize (no new liturgies could be formed, low tones, etc.) the Mass in one language. So why was Quo Primum necessary, one could ask?

 

[SonCatcher]

Among other things, yes.

So what do you think the (unchangeable) doctrine is here exactly which is the header of the document? (I trust this is a good translation.) Just asking.

Of this particular chapter: that fallen men (is there any other kind?) need help to lift their thoughts to God.

 

[ProVobis]

Of this particular chapter: that fallen men (is there any other kind?) need help to lift their thoughts to God.

Okay, but I wonder if the chapter might have even been written at all had not the Mass already been designed to be said in contrasting tones. It effectively says this in the attached anathema:

Canon IX.—Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiæ Romanæ ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem: anathema sit.

Canon IX.—If anyone 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.

 

[SonCatcher]

Okay, but I wonder if the chapter might have even been written at all had not the Mass already been designed to be said in contrasting tones. It effectively says this in the attached anathema:

There is no contradiction between the current practice and the anathema. No one says the words of consecration cannot be voiced in a low tone. Likewise, the vernacular is not required; it is merely available. (I have attended a Latin OF Mass - it was a worthwhile experience )

 

[curlycool89]

Oh, well that is a VERY grave penalty indeed. Wouldn’t want to get Pius V displeased, now do we?

But I need a baseline! Where does Pope Pius V displeased fit relative to Queen Victoria being not amused?

What about the DOCTRINAL declaration of Session 22 of the Council of Trent?

thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm

Canon IX.—If anyone saith

(Bolding is mine for easy reading. Quotes were also mashed together from 2 different posts to give better context)

My understanding is that that is a far too strict of a reading of the council. My understanding is that the Doctrine is that the Mass can be said silently (it would be heresy to say that the Mass must be said out loud), while the discipline was for the Mass to be said silently at the time. There was nothing there that explicitly forbid an out loud Mass doctrinally speaking. To read that into that pronouncement would be an erroneous interpretation. Like the next one, it is addressed to people who saith.

The other (vernacular tongue only) has a similar answer. No one can say that the Mass should only be in the vernacular. That is actually a very light and non-restrictive pronouncement, because I can easily read that to say that the Church would be fully within that canon even if it only offered vernacular Masses as long as we continue to affirm that non-vernacular Masses are still allowed and valid. The Canon only addresses “people who saith” not “people who doith”.

A similar saith/doith example would be the selling of indulgences. Is it valid (does it work)? Yes, the Church is free to distribute indulgences. Should we do it now? Absolutely not. I fully affirm that it is possible, but it’s still a terrible idea to do it in practice.

The water mixed with wine may border on revealed doctrine anyway (again, as a part of sacramental theology). It’s certainly been discipline for a long time (tidbit: the water to dilute the win actually goes back to 1st century Jewish customs. To drink straight wine was a to a drunkard - to look for a quick drunk - so Jesus would have added water to his wine because they were having a formal - and liturgical - meal. We follow Jesus in not being drunks, so we dilute the wine. The theological aspect of the water and the blood came a little later. It’s another one of our practices that has double meanings).

 

[ProVobis]

Like the next one, it is addressed to people who saith.

My understanding is that it was addressed to counter the Reformation and their beliefs.

 

[SonCatcher]

My understanding is that it was addressed to counter the Reformation and their beliefs.

Even if so, the anathema is applied to false condemnation only. It is not formulated to be a prohibition of reciting the prayer aloud.

(tidbit: the water to dilute the win actually goes back to 1st century Jewish customs. To drink straight wine was a to a drunkard - to look for a quick drunk - so Jesus would have added water to his wine because they were having a formal - and liturgical - meal. We follow Jesus in not being drunks, so we dilute the wine. The theological aspect of the water and the blood came a little later. It’s another one of our practices that has double meanings).

My understanding was that everyone mixed their water and wine in those days. If you were drinking wine, you would use some water to stretch out the wine while minimally affecting the flavor. If you were drinking water, you added just enough wine to make it palatable. I suppose there’s room for more theories if anyone wants to offer.