Origen of the Tridentene Mass

[Benay]

I am reading the book “Eucharistic Miracles” by Joan Carroll Cruz. On page 182 she states: “. . . the issuance of Pope St. Pius V’s bull *Quo Primum * in 1570. In that document the Pope ordered that Mass throughout the world be said according to the Roman Missal; bishops were thus no longer free to issue their own missals. The missal of Pope Pius V has come to be known as the “Tridentine” missal, as it was issued as part of the reforms of the Council of Trent.”

Can anyone support or refute that statement?

Thanks.**

 

[agnes_therese]

You can read it for yourself. See paragraph 3:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm

 

[ChadS]

I think from my limited understanding that statement seems pretty much right on. Up until the Council of Trent there was no one, standardized mass with one missal that everybody used. For the most part the mass said in the French or German parishes would be pretty similar to what was being used in Rome. The things that might differ were the collects or propers for a particular mass or the Latin phrasing might be unique to one diocese than others.

So, Pius V’s missal basically codified everything and standardized the way things were done. It suppressed any rites that were less than 200 years old, but over time the various rites that were old enough were gradually replaced by the Pius V missal. The importance of the new missal really was to act as a bulwark against Protestant errors. It made it much more difficult if not impossible for un-Catholic teachings or wording or actions to slip into mass either unwittingly or through malice by the various priests saying mass throughout Europe.

ChadS

 

[cephas161619]

In that document (Quo Priumum)] the Pope ordered that Mass throughout the world be said according to the Roman Missal; bishops were thus no longer free to issue their own missals.

As a Pope decreed, so another Pope may also change, as it is given all of them the power to bind and loose. This is a matter of custom, once ordered, but now the Church has seen fit to permit variations, as before the Council of Trent.

Up until the Council of Trent there was no one, standardized mass with one missal that everybody used. For the most part the mass said in the French or German parishes would be pretty similar to what was being used in Rome. The things that might differ were the collects or propers for a particular mass or the Latin phrasing might be unique to one diocese than others.

So, Pius V’s missal basically codified everything and standardized the way things were done. It suppressed any rites that were less than 200 years old, but over time the various rites that were old enough were gradually replaced by the Pius V missal. The importance of the new missal really was to act as a bulwark against Protestant errors. It made it much more difficult if not impossible for un-Catholic teachings or wording or actions to slip into mass either unwittingly or through malice by the various priests saying mass throughout Europe.

This was a huge step toward unity in the face of Protestantism. It was also very much for the people: they wouldn’t have to wonder if they were in a truly Catholic Church. Either the priest followed the Vicar of Christ and celebrated Mass according to the newly codified ritual or you could see him rebel and insert his own interpretations. Since Vatican II, the standard has returned to the pre-Tridentine usage and is slightly more relaxed, even if the priest is still expected to still express the same degree of ardent love and fervor.

 

[malphono]

I think from my limited understanding that statement seems pretty much right on. Up until the Council of Trent there was no one, standardized mass with one missal that everybody used. For the most part the mass said in the French or German parishes would be pretty similar to what was being used in Rome. The things that might differ were the collects or propers for a particular mass or the Latin phrasing might be unique to one diocese than others.

So, Pius V’s missal basically codified everything and standardized the way things were done. It suppressed any rites that were less than 200 years old, but over time the various rites that were old enough were gradually replaced by the Pius V missal. The importance of the new missal really was to act as a bulwark against Protestant errors. It made it much more difficult if not impossible for un-Catholic teachings or wording or actions to slip into mass either unwittingly or through malice by the various priests saying mass throughout Europe.

That’s basically it but I’m compelled to add a few comments.

Most of the local “Rites” that ended up being suppressed after Trent were what I’ll call “upstarts” and many of them were severely tainted by Protestant ideology.

For those that met the “200 year” rule, the Roman Rite had already supplanted most such local usages well before they were technically suppressed after Trent. The true Gallican Rite, for example, had long since fallen into disuse in favor of the Roman. So, too, the Celtic, and a variety of others, including those of Bangor, York, and Hereford. Sarum remained, but had been reduced in scope, again due to of the proliferation of the Roman Rite. Despite Queen Mary’s efforts to revive it, it was ultimately suppressed because its continuity of usage had lapsed because of Cranmer.

Regarding the few “territorial Rites” that survived Trent, they actually still survive today, at least officially, as do those proper to certain religious Orders. In some cases (e.g. Lyon and Braga), they fell into practical disuse after the release of the Novus Ordo, but have experienced a certain amount of revival in light of Summorum Pontificum.in that they are the local Usus Antiquior. The Ambrosian Rite was saved from total oblivion by Paul VI’s intervention after the release of the Novus Ordo, and now exists in a post-conciliar, Novus Ordo-influenced form, as well as its traditional form. The Mozarabic underwent an extensive restoration (released, I think, in 1992).

 

[ChadS]

That’s basically it but I’m compelled to add a few comments.

Most of the local “Rites” that ended up being suppressed after Trent were what I’ll call “upstarts” and many of them were severely tainted by Protestant ideology.

For those that met the “200 year” rule, the Roman Rite had already supplanted most such local usages well before they were technically suppressed after Trent. The true Gallican Rite, for example, had long since fallen into disuse in favor of the Roman. So, too, the Celtic, and a variety of others, including those of Bangor, York, and Hereford. Sarum remained, but had been reduced in scope, again due to of the proliferation of the Roman Rite. Despite Queen Mary’s efforts to revive it, it was ultimately suppressed because its continuity of usage had lapsed because of Cranmer.

Regarding the few “territorial Rites” that survived Trent, they actually still survive today, at least officially, as do those proper to certain religious Orders. In some cases (e.g. Lyon and Braga), they fell into practical disuse after the release of the Novus Ordo, but have experienced a certain amount of revival in light of Summorum Pontificum.in that they are the local Usus Antiquior. The Ambrosian Rite was saved from total oblivion by Paul VI’s intervention after the release of the Novus Ordo, and now exists in a post-conciliar, Novus Ordo-influenced form, as well as its traditional form. The Mozarabic underwent an extensive restoration (released, I think, in 1992).

Thank you for the excellent clarifications. I think I remember reading somewhere that the Roman Rite was really in place throughout most of Europe well before Trent. This was aided by the fact that most missionaries came out of Rome or Italy with their Missals in tow and the areas they evangelized or strengthen the faith in would know the Roman rite. Also, if bishops went to Rome or priests that traveled there would come back with new Missals and try to do things as the church in Rome did. This also underlies the fact that there was a strong desire to do things as they are done in the Holy See, seeing Rome as the beacon by which all standards should be judged.

ChadS

 

[ProVobis]

So, Pius V’s missal basically codified everything and standardized the way things were done.

Precisely, in the language as well as the rubrics.

 

[ProVobis]

Since Vatican II, the standard has returned to the pre-Tridentine usage and is slightly more relaxed, even if the priest is still expected to still express the same degree of ardent love and fervor.

Can’t we say Pope Paul VI codified the Latin version of the OF?