Suppressing the EF goes against the Council of Trent

[EphelDuath]

No orthodox Catholic can argue against that the OF is a licit and legitimate celebration of Holy Mass. That being said, is it not the case that those bishops who refuse to allow the EF to be celebrated in their [arch]dioceses in accordance with Summorum Pontificum are contradicting Council of Trent, Session 22, canon 9?

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.

If anyone says 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 vernacular 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.

Perhaps I am misreading this; thoughts?

 

[R_C]

No orthodox Catholic can argue against that the OF is a licit and legitimate celebration of Holy Mass. That being said, is it not the case that those bishops who refuse to allow the EF to be celebrated in their [arch]dioceses in accordance with Summorum Pontificum are contradicting Council of Trent, Session 22, canon 9?

Perhaps I am misreading this; thoughts?

A bishop should not refuse, according to Summorum Pontificum, for any priest that has the ability to do so, to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite if a stable community - albeit small - asks him to do so.

Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 § 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”

Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” to obtain counsel and assistance.

It is true that what we currently term the “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” cannot be validly removed/abolished/discarded/abrogated, not even by the Pope. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote:

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.

This is why, contrary to the impression given in the 70s and the erroneous statements that widely circulated leading to so much struggle and suffering for so many priests, the Pope wrote in Summorum Pontificum that it was “promulgatam et numquam abrogatam”, that is, “promulgated and never abrogated”. Never. Summorum Pontificum did not “re-allow” the Extraordinary Form, it just opened the gates wide for the faithful to have access to it.

Please note, however, that the bishop does have a specific, disciplinary authority according to the instruction Universae Ecclesiae:

Diocesan Bishops, according to Canon Law, are to monitor liturgical matters in order to guarantee the common good and to ensure that everything is proceeding in peace and serenity in their Dioceses, always in agreement with the mens of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. In cases of controversy or well-founded doubt about the celebration in the forma extraordinaria, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will adjudicate.

…] The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

Clearly, the Pontifical commission is the ultimate decision-maker, so if there is a stable community that truly desires to attend the forma extraordinaria, they should kindly and respectfully pursue the request with the (arch)bishop, and if nothing happens, with the Commission (letting, of course, the bishop know that this step will take place, and sending him a copy of whatever letter is sent…“so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anything without the bishop”.

 

[curlycool89]

If you want, you can read the exact same statement and get a different interpretation then the one you are presenting. Let’s look at the exact text again part by part:

If anyone says

This is the first couple words. The Latin very used is “dixerit”, coming from “dico”, which is a verb strictly having to do with speaking or talking or declaring. So, strictly speaking, the rest of this canon should be looked at as an intellectual doctrine, not a pastoral or action order.

Continuing,

If anyone says 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

So, this part of the canon is saying that “if anyone condemns saying the canon or consecration in a low voice” … let him be anathema. It is completely in accord with the canon to even require the Canon of the OF Mass to be spoken out loud so long as it is acknowledged that saying it quietly (as in the EF) is not wrong.

This canon neither says that the canon must be quiet nor that it must not be out loud, only that being said quietly cannot be condemned.

Next,

If anyone says that … the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only… let him be anathema.

This part of the canon is pretty easy to understand when the other parts are stripped out. What it says is that no one can say that the Mass should only be celebrated in the vernacular. This canon, strictly speaking, does not even require the Mass to be celebrated in the not-vernacular, but only says that it cannot be declared that (basically) “vernacular good, non-vernacular bad”.

For example, it would completely in accord with this canon to offer only vernacular Masses in a diocese so long as it is acknowledged that the Mass can absolutely be validly celebrated in the non-vernacular (ie - Latin). The canon only says a person is anathema if they say the Mass ought only to be celebrated in the vernacular. A diocese can say “we only celebrate Mass in the vernacular” so long as they don’t add “and that’s the only way it should be” (it could be lack of interest or lack of resources to offer a Latin Mass, for example).

The last part of the canon is about adding water to the wine, something which both the OF and EF do and neither dispute it, so I won’t go into that (I don’t know the historical context, but I’m guessing that someone was saying it was wrong).

So for your question, the interpretation of this Canon would basically be that you can’t condem the EF as being bad. You could, however, not offer it while still acknowledging that it is a valid form of the Mass (I acknowledge all the Eastern forms of the Mass/Divine Liturgy, but I’m not asking my bishop to go out of his way to offer all of those in my diocese for example), and that would not contradict this canon from Trent at all.

 

[CrossofChrist]

No orthodox Catholic can argue against that the OF is a licit and legitimate celebration of Holy Mass. That being said, is it not the case that those bishops who refuse to allow the EF to be celebrated in their [arch]dioceses in accordance with Summorum Pontificum are contradicting Council of Trent, Session 22, canon 9?

Perhaps I am misreading this; thoughts?

There is one rite in the Roman Church, but two forms of that rite. Hence, no problem.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It is true that what we currently term the “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” cannot be validly removed/abolished/discarded/abrogated, not even by the Pope.

.

I’m curious as to how you have reached this conclusion. I’m pretty sure the Pope DOES have the authority and COULD validly remove/abolish/discard/ abrogate the EF or any other liturgical form. I’m not saying he SHOULD, only that he CAN. Have I misunderstood you?

 

[Ghislieri]

If the EF could’ve been abrogated, Paul VI would have done it. His intent was to supplant the TLM and cast it aside. Fr. Calvin Goodwin, FSSP, who teaches at their seminary in Nebraska, emphatically states this and the history of what happened after the NO was implemented supports this. This is why a “New Mass” was fabricated, to remove the obstacles of what Trent and Pope St. Pius V said about changing the Mass of that time.(Side note: the plan was to get the Mass as close to Protestant worship as possible, ie, take out what is offensive to them in the hopes that it would gain them.)

The real issue, to my mind, is that most Catholics think the New Mass is just a continuation of the TLM, would is just not true. It is a brand new creation, done by a liturgical committee. To have two forms within one rite shows the break in continuity of how the Mass organically developed over time, especially with how abrupt (violent were Ratzingers own words) the implementation was.

 

[Big_Feet]

 

[Lucky7]

Eh, don’t get too comfy with that popcorn. I highly doubt that this thread is going to last.

But could you pass me some in the mean time?

 

[Ghislieri]

Eh, don’t get too comfy with that popcorn. I highly doubt that this thread is going to last.

But could you pass me some in the mean time?

Especially if a certain someone jumps in…

 

[thistle]

Any Mass can be changed or abolished because the Form of Mass is not a doctrine. It is a discipline. The only things in Mass that cannot be changed are the words of consecration and the priest receiving Communion. Everything else can be changed.
No Pope can bind other Popes on the Form of the Mass.

This of course has nothing to do with whether the EF (which exists and is valid) can be denied in a parish today or not. In an EF parish why would it be stopped and in a NO parish it can be requested by the parishioners.

 

[Ghislieri]

Any Mass can be changed or abolished because the Form of Mass is not a doctrine. It is a discipline. The only things in Mass that cannot be changed are the words of consecration and the priest receiving Communion. Everything else can be changed.
No Pope can bind other Popes on the Form of the Mass.

This of course has nothing to do with whether the EF (which exists and is valid) can be denied in a parish today or not. In an EF parish why would it be stopped and in a NO parish it can be requested by the parishioners.

I’m harkening back to that quote from Jurassic Park:

“…they were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

Is the Church better off with the New Mass? The fruits have been, to put it mildly, difficult to praise with the carnage seen in the average Church liturgy. Too many options have been given that men of bad will have exploited.

Whether the pope can abolish something that was guided by the Holy Ghost
and simply say that it’s “only discipline” it missing the point. The New Mass is valid, no doubt. But what it conveys to the faithful in the pew is less than what it tried to replace. The Old Testament shows how God’s wrath would be manifested when the liturgy that was given the Hebrews by Him was deviated from. I think were are reaping those fruits again.

 

[otjm]

Is the Church better off with the New Mass? The fruits have been, to put it mildly, difficult to praise with the carnage seen in the average Church liturgy.

Wow - carnage? You must have been to some interesting parishes. I guess I have to wonder how many parishes you have actually seen, given that the most recent count I could find is that there are 17,640 of them. You may live in an area that is more problematic than others; I live in Oregon and at last count in the last 10 to 15 years, I have been to Mass at 22 parishes, college chapels and abbeys in Oregon, 3 parishes in Utah and two in North Dakota and not one of them had any carnage. My parish has the OF (4 on a weekend), 24/7/363 Perpetual Adoration, has produced 2 deacons, three priests, and one woman professed to a group os sisters who might be considered a bit conservative (they wear a distinguishable habit, e.g.), and we are the first parish in Oregon in 40 years to start a grade school. No EF, no sign of one coming, but carnage? Nope.

Too many options have been given that men of bad will have exploited.

Just my opinion, but it is not the options which have caused problems; it is the failure to follow the rubrics that seems to have caused carnage. If the rubrics provide an option, that is not carnage; that is following the rubrics.

Whether the pope can abolish something that was guided by the Holy Ghost and simply say that it’s “only discipline” it missing the point. The New Mass is valid, no doubt. But what it conveys to the faithful in the pew is less than what it tried to replace. The Old Testament shows how God’s wrath would be manifested when the liturgy that was given the Hebrews by Him was deviated from. I think were are reaping those fruits again.

I will grant that the OF is not as God-transcendent as the EF; on the other hand, the EF is not as God-imminent as the OF, and some of this is what causes people to be aggravated even when the OF is celebrated in a reverent, prayerful manner.

As to whether or not the OF coveys to the faithful in the pew - like I said, 3 priests, 2 deacons and a sister. That is not setting the world on fire; but it is also not something to be dismissively sneezed at, either.

 

[agnes_therese]

Eh, don’t get too comfy with that popcorn. I highly doubt that this thread is going to last.

But could you pass me some in the mean time?

I’ll run out for some sodas.

 

[OraLabora]

I’ll run out for some sodas.

And I’ll get the beer

 

[Megan7]

No orthodox Catholic can argue against that the OF is a licit and legitimate celebration of Holy Mass. That being said, is it not the case that those bishops who refuse to allow the EF to be celebrated in their [arch]dioceses in accordance with Summorum Pontificum are contradicting Council of Trent, Session 22, canon 9?

Perhaps I am misreading this; thoughts?

I will read this later on.

Please save some of the popcorn for me Thanks.

Pax

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps I am misreading this; thoughts?

I don’t think so. What about this one, though? From Session VII,

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.

Canon XIII.—If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by any pastor of the churches, into other new ones: let him be anathema.

 

[Lucky7]

I will grant that the OF is not as God-transcendent as the EF; on the other hand, the EF is not as God-imminent as the OF, and some of this is what causes people to be aggravated even when the OF is celebrated in a reverent, prayerful manner.

Could you explain this further? Because I’m just not understanding the “God-imminent” description at all. If the Eucharist is the Eucharist (ie. the Real Presence) in both forms of the mass how would one (in this case you’re saying the OF) be more “God-imminent” than the other?

 

[OraLabora]

I’m harkening back to that quote from Jurassic Park:

“…they were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

Is the Church better off with the New Mass? The fruits have been, to put it mildly, difficult to praise with the carnage seen in the average Church liturgy. Too many options have been given that men of bad will have exploited.

Whether the pope can abolish something that was guided by the Holy Ghost
and simply say that it’s “only discipline” it missing the point. The New Mass is valid, no doubt. But what it conveys to the faithful in the pew is less than what it tried to replace. The Old Testament shows how God’s wrath would be manifested when the liturgy that was given the Hebrews by Him was deviated from. I think were are reaping those fruits again.

It really depends on how and where it is celebrated. At the abbey I’m associated with as an oblate, Gregorian propers and ordinary chanted in Latin/Greek every single day, strictly faithful to the 1974 Graduale Romanum. No issues there. Ordinary Form of course.

The question I’d like to ask: given the spirit of our times (individualism, rebellious attitude towards authority, etc.), do you think if the EF was normative, there wouldn’t be abuses?

If liturgists today are disobedient of the OF rubrics, what makes one think they’d be any more respectful of the EF rubrics? The EF today is carefully preserved by clergy whose mission is to do just that.

I’m pretty sure that pre-Vatican II there was plenty of bad chanting, priests mumbling, incomprehensible Latin and speeding through a low Mass in record time, all of which show a degree of irreverence towards a sacred and Jesus truly present on the altar. If anything discipline these days is even worse.

Could it be that the true culprit is not the new liturgy but rather the spirit of our times? Just saying, because in paces where respect, reverence and obedience are cultivated, such as the Benedictine monasteries I’ve been to in Canada and Europe, the OF Mass is simply beautiful. I’m sure for instance that the FSSP’s degree of respect, reverence and obedience to rubrics is no greater than that shown by monks in a Benedictine abbey using the OF. If the FSSP were instead given the mandate to celebrate the OF according to Sacrosanctum Concilium, they’d be celebrating very beautiful OF liturgies.

So perhaps we can put this straw man to rest, that the OF Mass itself is somehow the culprit for the liturgical disasters we see, and put the blame squarely where it belongs: on disobedience.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The question I’d like to ask: given the spirit of our times (individualism, rebellious attitude towards authority, etc.), do you think if the EF was normative, there wouldn’t be abuses?

I know there would be, but I honestly do believe there would be less. The problem with half of the weird stuff is that usually you can pull some obscure source supporting horrible liturgical decisions; with the EF, you know with very high certainty what is and what is not allowed. At least if it is abused, there is almost never arguing about it. It is or it isn’t.

/end

 

[Ghislieri]

The following are extracts from Pope Benedict’s Autobiography. They speak for themselves:

“The promulgation of the banning of the Missal that had been developed in the course of centuries, starting from the time of the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, has brought with it a break in the history of the liturgy whose consequences could be tragic …
The old structure was broken to pieces and another was constructed, admittedly with material of which the old structure had been made and using also the preceding models … the fact that [the liturgy] was presented as a new structure, set up against what had been formed in the course of history and was now prohibited, and that the liturgy was made to appear in some ways no longer as a living process but as a product of specialized knowledge and juridical competence, has brought with it some extremely serious damages for us.”