Question on the Ordinary Form of the Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter LennyFL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
InNomineDomini said:
This is just a passing comment, but if there’s one thing that irritates me, it’s lay Catholics setting up their own, personal interpretation of Church documents, and claiming their understanding trumps that of the Magisterium.

The Church interprets the Church.

Joe Charlie, who rightfully loves incense, does not.
Click to expand...
Fair point, but it wasn’t until the internet, that most of these documents weren’t available, especially in their Latin format. Apparently everything before then was by word of mouth and somewhat conflicting. For example, there were claims by most that the old Mass was abrogated in favor of the all-vernacular. Well, as it turned out, the Old Mass was not in fact abrogated and Latin was certainly not forbidden in the liturgy.
 
Let’s see. Obviously hind sight is 20/20…but I think most of us can agree on the fact that, looking back to the craziness of some Liturgies in the 70s and 80s and even in some places today (thank goodness they aren’t that common any more), that Paul VI did not make a good prudential judgment about how to promulgate/promote the New Mass. But then, perhaps even if the New Mass had never been promulgated, it may have been that crazy things would have gone on in what we now know as the EF…I guess we will just never know.

In any case, my point is, I think one can make legitimate arguments claiming that it was neither prudent nor necessary to change the Liturgy to what it is now (even when celebrated reverently and all that), but the fact still stands that a legitimate authority (Paul VI) DID promulgate the New Mass, so no matter whether or not one likes it, one cannot claim it is invalid.
 
LennyFL said:
I think I just understood what the text in bold was saying. It is specifically saying that what the Pope has to say is above canon law? Is this only when the Pope is speaking ex Cathedra though? ."
Click to expand...
No, Canon Law has the force of law simply because the Pope says it does. The Pope is not bound by Canon Law in any way, as it only has force because the Pope says it does.

The Pope is the ultimate judicator, he is the final authority on what Canon Law means, when it can be applied, if at all. He can re-write it, or ignore it, at his whim.

And the bolded part means that no one can even use the text of an Ecumenical Council as ‘proof’ that what the Pope decreed is wrong (which is exactly what your friend is trying to do)
Is there somewhere in writing that the Holy See has approved of the mass? I am trying to gather as much information as possible before I present all this to him. Thank you so much!
Click to expand...
The Pope is the one who actually promulgated the new Mass ( Pope Paul IV).

The actual Papal document was called Missale Romanum, and was issued by Pope Paul IV on April 3, 1969, and bore his seal and signature.
 
Brendan said:
The Pope is the one who actually promulgated the new Mass ( Pope Paul IV).

The actual Papal document was called Missale Romanum, and was issued by Pope Paul IV on April 3, 1969, and bore his seal and signature.
Click to expand...
FWIW, the Old Mass, which was supposedly protected by Trent, was dismantled (contemned?) long before the Missale Romanum was issued. And the 1969 document issued it as Novus Ordo Missae, not a revision to the Old Mass. Important distinction IMO.
 
Brendan said:
No, Canon Law has the force of law simply because the Pope says it does. The Pope is not bound by Canon Law in any way, as it only has force because the Pope says it does.

The Pope is the ultimate judicator, he is the final authority on what Canon Law means, when it can be applied, if at all. He can re-write it, or ignore it, at his whim.

And the bolded part means that no one can even use the text of an Ecumenical Council as ‘proof’ that what the Pope decreed is wrong (which is exactly what your friend is trying to do)

The Pope is the one who actually promulgated the new Mass ( Pope Paul IV).

The actual Papal document was called Missale Romanum, and was issued by Pope Paul IV on April 3, 1969, and bore his seal and signature.
Click to expand...
What you just said, that the Pope can ignore Canon law. Is this written somewhere in a valid document or canon. I would like to present this to my friend also. Before I approach him with this I want all the evidence so he can have no doubt.
 
LennyFL said:
What you just said, that the Pope can ignore Canon law. Is this written somewhere in a valid document or canon. I would like to present this to my friend also. Before I approach him with this I want all the evidence so he can have no doubt.
Click to expand...
Can 331 (bold is mine):
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
And in case he asks “well, if the Pope decrees something that people don’t agree with or think is wrong, can’t the laity or Bishops over-rule him?” point out Can 332§3§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
 
Doc, I was just about to post that very Canon 🙂

Lenny, the better question would be: Why would be Pope be subject to something of his own creation?

Congress, for example, can repeal or change any law that it creates. Now the US Congress is subject to the Constitition, for it is the Constitution that gives Congress it’s power.

But the Holy See has no such Constitution. The Supreme temporal authority is the Pope Himself, subject only to God alone.

That was made clear in Pastor Aeternus, which I posted earler.
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
Click to expand...
The is what pre-eminent authority means, that the Pope’s authority is second to nothing in regards to matters of Faith, Morals and discipline and governance of the Church.

Also, you can ask your friend is he is obeying Vatican I, which stated what I bolded above
 
Windmill said:
Actually, I know. Most people know what I’m talking about when I call it that.
Click to expand...
The term “Tridentine” wasn’t used in connection with the Mass before 1969, I don’t think. And it shouldn’t IMO, as there are/were other received and approved rites that the Council of Trent protected. Some, like the Sarum Use, might have fallen into disuse stage, but have not officially been abolished AFAIK.
 
While I’m not Catholic, and my understanding of council canons leaves much to be desired, I do in fact read English fluently as a native speaker. I’m afraid your friend didn’t exercise his due diligence in reading comprehension.
LennyFL said:
In Session 7 On the Sacraments in General it states
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn [Page 56] administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Even if we humor his interpretation of “every pastor” to include any and all Popes, any and all Dicasteries in the Vatican, and any and all Bishops in Ecumenical Council, he would still be wrong to assume this applies to the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, …]

The Ordinary Form of the Mass is a “received and approved rite of the Catholic Church” in and of itself. It isn’t some random deviation that was unilaterally created by a rogue priest, bishop, or even a Pope.

…] may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

Notice the part I put in bold and red font. “Be omitted at pleasure by the ministers” clarifies exactly what is meant here as “change”. It isn’t talking about officially recognized deliberate change to the rites by the Church as a whole, rather it’s talking about rogue individual celebrants making their own modifications to suit their own tastes. In other words this canon seems to me to be saying “If anyone says it’s OK to commit a liturgical abuse (as the Church defines it) let him be anathema”.
 
Brandon_Cal said:
While I’m not Catholic, and my understanding of council canons leaves much to be desired, I do in fact read English fluently as a native speaker. I’m afraid your friend didn’t exercise his due diligence in reading comprehension.
Click to expand...
That may be but the Latin* is authoritative and it was what meaning it had at that time that counted, not what some translator said it means today.

Also I’ve seen other translations to the 1969 Apostolic Constitution which pothos quoted but there is no doubt that it was an Apostolic Constitution, the highest level of decree issued by a Pope which gave it the legal force, not the translation (“we wish…”) in itself.
  • Canon XIII.—Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbates Ecclesiæ Catholicæ ritus, in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos, aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.
 
Brandon_Cal said:
While I’m not Catholic, and my understanding of council canons leaves much to be desired, I do in fact read English fluently as a native speaker. I’m afraid your friend didn’t exercise his due diligence in reading comprehension.

Even if we humor his interpretation of “every pastor” to include any and all Popes, any and all Dicasteries in the Vatican, and any and all Bishops in Ecumenical Council, he would still be wrong to assume this applies to the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, …]

The Ordinary Form of the Mass is a “received and approved rite of the Catholic Church” in and of itself. It isn’t some random deviation that was unilaterally created by a rogue priest, bishop, or even a Pope.

…] may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

Notice the part I put in bold and red font. “Be omitted at pleasure by the ministers” clarifies exactly what is meant here as “change”. It isn’t talking about officially recognized deliberate change to the rites by the Church as a whole, rather it’s talking about rogue individual celebrants making their own modifications to suit their own tastes. In other words this canon seems to me to be saying “If anyone says it’s OK to commit a liturgical abuse (as the Church defines it) let him be anathema”.
Click to expand...
Exactly. How long before someone actually read what the canon really said?

The canon is a prohibition against liturgical abuse, not against the future authorized revision of the rites.
 
ProVobis said:
That may be but the Latin is authoritative and it was what meaning it had at that time that counted, not what some translator said it means today.

Also I’ve seen other translations to the 1969 Apostolic Constitution which pothos quoted but there is no doubt that it was an Apostolic Constitution, the highest level of decree issued by a Pope which gave it the legal force, not the translation (“we wish…”) in itself.
Click to expand...
The translation is for the convenience of the reader. As with all things legislative, only the Latin has force.
 
porthos11 said:
The translation is for the convenience of the reader. As with all things legislative, only the Latin has force.
Click to expand...
Precisely, because Latin uses phrases like oportet sit, decet, licet, placet, requirit, etc. or a jussive subjunctive, to indicate the degree of force. English uses modal verbs (must, should, ought, may, etc.) which aren’t exactly equivalent to the Latin.
 
Brandon_Cal said:
If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, …]
Click to expand...
For the record, this was clarified later by Pope Pius V, in his Apostolic Constitution, to be any rites older than 200 years. All others were abolished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top