How did the 1962 Missal become suppressed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jimmy

Guest
My understanding is that Vatican II did not disallow the TLM. I have heard that it was a later date that disallowed the public saying of it. Then Pope John Paul II allowed the bishops to make the decision. When was it officially disallowed?
 
40.png
jimmy:
My understanding is that Vatican II did not disallow the TLM. I have heard that it was a later date that disallowed the public saying of it. Then Pope John Paul II allowed the bishops to make the decision. When was it officially disallowed?
Click to expand...
This is a highly simplified version of the events as I remember them. There are a lot of web sites that specialize in this particular argument from both sides.

I don’t think it was ever officially disallowed. Between around 1965 or so and 1970, the Church celebrated what could best be described as an English Language version of the Traditional Mass. The changes that were reccomended by Vatican II were not really introduced until around 1970. A new Missal came then that was the forerunner of todays missal. More changes were made in the ongoing years and continue to be made to this day.

In 1984 Pope John Paul II wanted to find out how the Mass was being accepted and practiced by the faithful. As a result of his inquiry he granted the indult. Many say this was a token gesture to try to get the numerous schismatic groups back into the church. It is also widely believed that the Church granted the indult primarily so that older people would be more comfortable and that as they died out so would the desire for the Traditional Mass. It was never, according to them, supposed to go on for very long. Many in both the Vatican and the laity were apparently quite surprised at the explosive growth of the Traditional Mass and its supporters.

Around 1986 the Holy Father wanted to find out if the Traditional Mass had ever been officially suppressed. The results from that inquiry are contradictory, to say the least, but tend to be of the general opinion that the Traditional Mass had never officially been disallowed The Novus Ordo Mass is seen as an organic development of the Traditional Mass instead of a entirely new mass. As you may have guessed this view is not accepted by many people on either side of the argument.

So the basic argument usually has been, if the Traditional Mass was never officially suppressed, why is an indult necessary at all??

That argument continues to rage today with both groups presenting very reasonable arguments and claims for their view. Only time will tell I guess.

I know there are those on this forum with a much more extensive knowledge of this subject than me. Hopefully some of them will step up.
 
So the basic argument usually has been, if the traditional mass was never officially suppressed, why is an indult necessary?
Click to expand...
This is basically what I am asking. Vatican II didn’t officially suppress the TLM, so how did it go from being allowed to being completely disallowed to being allowed only with the permission of the bishop? I know the last part, Pope John Paul II released an indult that declared it. But is it as you imply, that it was never actually suppressed and was only suppressed by the fact that pretty much all preists quit the TLM and went to the Mass of Paul VI? Was it an assumed suppression? If so, then the only thing that is restricting the saying of the TLM mass would be Pope John Paul II’s statement, which is kind of ironic.
 
40.png
palmas85:
Around 1986 the Holy Father wanted to find out if the Traditional Mass had ever been officially suppressed. The results from that inquiry are contradictory, to say the least, but tend to be of the general opinion that the Traditional Mass had never officially been disallowed The Novus Ordo Mass is seen as an organic development of the Traditional Mass instead of a entirely new mass. As you may have guessed this view is not accepted by many people on either side of the argument.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict doesn’t see the Novus Ordo Mass as an organic development of the TLM, if his writings prior to his election are any indication of his current thought.

“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

James
 
Pope Benedict doesn’t see the Novus Ordo Mass as an organic development of the TLM, if his writings prior to his election are any indication of his current thought.
Click to expand...
this is my opinon as well. if you look at his writtings on the subject he is super critical of the new mass. i believe we are still in the experimental phase. the new mass will die out on its own. i think it is that bad while the trindentine mass will continue to thrive.

what they will do is incorperate enough tridentine practices into the new mass until people see how it has organically developed from the old. as of now, they are completely different from each other, in ethos and asthetics.
 
40.png
James0235:
Pope Benedict doesn’t see the Novus Ordo Mass as an organic development of the TLM, if his writings prior to his election are any indication of his current thought.

“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

James
Click to expand...
I quite agree with the Holy Father. However, it does seem to be a minority opinion or at least an opinion that few people will publically voice.

I hope that the Holy Father stilll retains his views and acts to make some changes in the current implementation of the Mass.
 
oat soda:
this is my opinon as well. if you look at his writtings on the subject he is super critical of the new mass. i believe we are still in the experimental phase. the new mass will die out on its own. i think it is that bad while the trindentine mass will continue to thrive.

what they will do is incorperate enough tridentine practices into the new mass until people see how it has organically developed from the old. as of now, they are completely different from each other, in ethos and asthetics.
Click to expand...
I have to say that could have been the original intention. Give the people something new, take away the old and they will forget it. Then they could begin true ecumenical dialogue because one of the biggest stumbling blocks, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will no longer be so alien and strange to the separated brethern. It will in fact more closely resemble their forms of worship, then anything the Church ever had.

Not much of a stretch when you look at whats going on these days.
 
oat soda:
this is my opinon as well. if you look at his writtings on the subject he is super critical of the new mass. i believe we are still in the experimental phase. the new mass will die out on its own. i think it is that bad while the trindentine mass will continue to thrive.

what they will do is incorperate enough tridentine practices into the new mass until people see how it has organically developed from the old. as of now, they are completely different from each other, in ethos and asthetics.
Click to expand...
I, too, believe that the new Mass will be substantially altered in the coming decades. After the Council, the pendulem swung to an extreme in one direction. Like a pendulum, it is inevitable that it will swing back in the opposite direction.

The Mass will never return to what it once was, but we’ve had a generation to determine what works and what doesn’t. The Church will discard what clearly doesn’t work, and enrich and expand what does. That’s the pendulum. Or is that the sword of Damocles? :bigyikes:
 
40.png
palmas85:
I quite agree with the Holy Father. However, it does seem to be a minority opinion or at least an opinion that few people will publically voice.
Click to expand...
It might not be prudent for the Holy Father to voice this opinion now. I can just see the headlines - “Pope rejects New Mass”. And then there would be all of the otherwise conservative Catholics who would go sedevacantist. Because it’s obvious he can’t be pope if he’s rejecting the Mass.
40.png
palmas85:
I hope that the Holy Father stilll retains his views and acts to make some changes in the current implementation of the Mass.
Click to expand...
I knew that JPII was never gonna do anything to improve the state of the Liturgy. (At least not on earth. He may just be interceding in heaven). But I have a good feeling the pope Benedict will do something.

James
 
40.png
James0235:
It might not be prudent for the Holy Father to voice this opinion now. I can just see the headlines - “Pope rejects New Mass”. And then there would be all of the otherwise conservative Catholics who would go sedevacantist. Because it’s obvious he can’t be pope if he’s rejecting the Mass.
Click to expand...
He has already voiced his opinion on the new mass in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy .

In the introduction he talks about how the mass may need to be taken back to how it was before if it does not improve, except different words.
I knew that JPII was never gonna do anything to improve the state of the Liturgy. (At least not on earth. He may just be interceding in heaven). But I have a good feeling the pope Benedict will do something.
Click to expand...
I hope he will do something.

But, back to the topic; was the TLM ever really suppressed, or was it an assumed suppression?
 
40.png
James0235:
It might not be prudent for the Holy Father to voice this opinion now. I can just see the headlines - “Pope rejects New Mass”. And then there would be all of the otherwise conservative Catholics who would go sedevacantist. Because it’s obvious he can’t be pope if he’s rejecting the Mass.

I knew that JPII was never gonna do anything to improve the state of the Liturgy. (At least not on earth. He may just be interceding in heaven). But I have a good feeling the pope Benedict will do something.

James
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this. And I sure hope that he does something.
 
Here are a few interesting files on the matter of the replacement of the liturgy pursuant to Pope St Pius V’s Quo Primum by the liturgy of Pope Paul VI – Missale Romanum:

Extracts from the A – Z “cheat-sheet” on the Society of St Pius X at http://jloughnan.tripod.com/chetsheet.htm

L

Law

· A later law repeals the former one, “if it contains an explicit statement to that effect, a repealing clause.” Pope Paul VI’s Missale Romanum did exactly that.

Law - on the “Tridentine” Mass

· --Bishop Fellay: “It means that the law which says that the Tridentine Mass is the Catholic Mass is still in vigor. “
Answer: WRONG!!!

N

Defenses:

· Albers, Ph.B., Fritz: "In Defense of the Novus Ordo Missae of His Holiness Pope Paul VI,

· Faulk, Deacon Ed.: On the Validity of the Mass of Paul VI

· Lupia, Ph. D., John N.: “A Defense of the Pauline Mass”

· Mozarabic Rite vis a vis The Novus Ordo Missae, The

continued:
 
continued:

Q

Quo Primum tempore, Encyclical by Pope St Pius X

· At first glance seems to be unalterable in any way.

· A careful reading of the text shows that Pope St. Pius V never intended by Quo Primum that further revision of the Roman Missal could never be made, or that no other form of the Roman Mass, could henceforth never be said (as alleged by those against the New Mass).

· Pope St. Pius V’s Mass of 1570 was a new rite of Mass

· Since they base their belief in the immutable character of Quo Primum on the very wording of the Bull, it should be sufficient to show from Tradition that Papal Bulls, using exactly the same phraseology, have been set aside by subsequent Popes, if the Bulls dealt with matters of Church discipline.

· The text of Quo Primum shows that Pius V knew it was a NEW RITE of Mass

· The whole movement is based on one thing and one thing only: their totally mistaken idea that the bull Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V could not be set aside by Pope Paul VI. This mistake is the sole basis of the earliest origin of the whole controversy.

S

Sacrifice of the Mass

· New Order of the Mass [is] a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation and satisfaction, thus affirming doctrines that Protestants specifically deny.

· The foreword to the General Instruction on the Roman Missal states:

· The substance of the Mass remains absolutely the same: there is the Offertory, the Consecration. . . And the Sovereign Pontiff has recalled expressly what was not expressed sufficiently in the rubrics of the new Ordo: that the Mass is a sacrifice. - Charles Cardinal Journet

T

“Tridentine” Mass and “Tridentine” Missal.

· Officially, there is no such Mass or Missal known as the “Tridentine” Mass or Missal! Whether it be 1570 or 1969, the normative Mass and Missal are The Roman Rite of Mass and The Roman Missal as approved by the reigning Roman Pontiff of the time.
 
Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969 promulgated the new missal, just as St. Pius V’s Quo Primam did for the former missal. Both pontiffs had the perrogative to do so; one could not bind the other in a matter such as liturgical texts.

Pope Paul’s Apostolic Constitution does refer to the previous liturgical forms and states that “anything to the contrary [is] notwithstanding.” In other words, previous forms that are not those of the 1970 missal did not withstand beyond the date of promulgation of the new missal, which was the First Sunday of Advent, 1969. This was later extended to the first of January, 1971.

Was this a prudent gesture? We can certainly differe in our views of that. My own view is that this was a disasterous move, as were altars versus populum, communion in the hand, near-total abandonment of Latin, altar girls, etc. But did he have the right to do so. Yes. And did he intend to suppress the old missal? It would appear so, by his reference to contrary texts notwithstanding.
 
40.png
jimmy:
My understanding is that Vatican II did not disallow the TLM. I have heard that it was a later date that disallowed the public saying of it. Then Pope John Paul II allowed the bishops to make the decision. When was it officially disallowed?
Click to expand...
It does not take an Ecumenical Council to change the discipline of the form of the Eucharistic Liturgy.

The promulgate of a new missal suppresses the eariler missal.

Some will claim that the 1970 Missal was not properly promulgated but that is just nonsense.

Just as the Liturgy is celebrated by the current missal now, no priest could go back and use the 1970 missal.

The fact that Pope John Paul II was nice enough to allow an indult does not change this fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top