I’m not here to pick a fight, but to figure out the facts about this matter.
Pope Benedict XVI wrote that “the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 [was] never abrogated” in Summorum Pontificum Art. 1.
Ordinarily, when a new edition of a Missal is promulgated, the older one is expected to be discontinued, no? For example, when Bl. Pope John XXIII added St. Joseph’s name to the Canon in 1962, it was expected that priests would no longer use the older edition of the Roman Missal without this addition, correct?
So why was this process of one edition superseding another not the case in 1969? Did the 1969 Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI not “do it right”? (Or is it because the 1969 Missal is not an “edition” of the 1962 Missal, but truly a new missal, hence the 2002 MR is the third typical edition?)
I ask these questions because I have seen many references in the documents in the anthology Documents on the Liturgy that express the belief that the 1962 Missal was abrogated. I’ll produce quotes later, but for now I need to go to work. I’m just curious why the 1962 Missal is determined to have been “never abrogated.”
This was a HUGE debate ever since the new Mass was introduced. The Traditionalists always maintained that the old Mass was never abrogated.
Paul VI published a “new Rite of Mass” not another FORM of the same right (as Pope Benedict now refers to it). It may be considered another FORM of the same Rite now, but that was not the intent of Paul VI. He made two well known speaches when the new Mass was introduced: one in March and the other on November of 1969 (look them up, they are interesting). In both speaches, he said he was creating a “new Rite of Mass”.
Now, when he promulgated the new Rite of Mass (promulgate might not be the correct word), all he did was publish it. He never abrogated the other. There were false translations of the promulgation that surfaced which gave the impression that the old had been abrogated; but as the Traditionalists always showed, these translations were erroneous. Of course they were ridiculed for pointing out that the translation was false (if I recall correctly, an entire paragraph was added to what Paul VI actually said).
Therefore, since all Paul VI did was publish the new Mass and express his desire that it be excepted; and since he never said the old was abrogated, it was always maintained by the Traditionalists that every Priest had the right to say it. They always maintained that there was no need for an indult, since an indult is permission to do what the law does not permit.
In his autobiography, Bugnini tells a story that surprised him at the time. He said that whenever he went to Paul VI to have him sign a document, the Pope would sign it - sometimes without even reading it; but when he brought him a document to abrogate the old Mass, the Pope read it and refused to sign. He was surprised because this was so contrary to what the Pope normally did.
In 1986, John Paul II formed a commission of 9 Cardinals (one of whom was Cardinal Ratzinger) to study this issued and determine if the Mass, which was being supressed at the time, was ever *legally *abrogated.
They were asked to respond to two question: 1.) Was the Mass ever abrogated; 2.) Does every Priest have the right to say the old Mass.
To the first question they concluded unanimously that the old Mass was never abroated. The vote was 9 to 0. To the second question, all but one voted that any Priest had the right to say the old Mass. The other Cardinal did not vote against it. He abstained from voting. This results of this commission were discussed publicly by several of the members.
Unfortunately, John Paul II never came out and admitted that the old Mass was not abrogated, therefore giving the impression that the faithful and holy Priests who continued to say it were “disobedient”. Instead, he issued an “indult” for the old Mass, which enabled the Bishops to keep it supressed, except for a few Masses here and there, usually in a bad area of town, and at an inconvenient time.
Fortunately, our new Pope had the courage to admit the truth, thereby confirming that the Traditionalists had been right all along.
Now, you mentioned finding liturgical documents saying that the old Mass had been abrogated. These were surely produced during the time in which virtually ever Catholic (except for the Traditional Catholics) was led to believe that it had been. Virtually the entire Catholic world had been led into this error by the hierarchy, and considered those faithful and holy Priest who knew the truth, to be “disobedient”. These Priests, and the faithful who attended their Masses, were ridiculed and called all kinds of names (schismatic, disobedient, “more Catholic than the Pope”, etc.) for simply holding to what was true. It is thanks for these holy Priests and their supporters that the old Mass still exists, and is now making a comeback.
The truth was always available for those who would look into it; but since the truth came from Traditionalist sources - and since Traditionalist were said to be “disobedient schismatics” - most would either not read the evidence, or else reject it if they did. In the end, they had much egg on their face. Therefore, they almost never bring this issue up. Or if they do, they explain it as if the Pope merely
“made the use of the Traditional Mass more widely available”, instead of admitting that he said it was never abrogated.
