The legitmacy of the Tridentine Mass

[Cathain]

There is something that’s always had me curious me with regards to Pope John Paul II’s indult, and that is the way that it appears to have made the celebrating of the Tridentine Mass permissible in extraordinary cases (ie. only with permission of the bishop, I believe).
However, there is a passage in the Papal Encyclical Quo Primum Tempore which states with regards to the Tridentine Mass:-

…in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force…

It appears not only to guarantee the Tridentine Mass the right to be celebrated without fear of censure, but also to prohibit any significant change to it (ie. I undersand it was revised on numerous occasions but it still remained essentially the same liturgy)
So can Pope St. Pius V’s perpetual indult have been validly revoked by the Concilliar Church? How does this stand with regards to the Magesterium?

I hope somone can help clear this up and it’s been on my mind for many a long year.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Quo Primum gets dug up and waved around periodically.

Similar language was used when the Breviary was promulgated 2 years earlier by this Pope, but NOBODY said anything when a radically revised Psalter distribution for the Breviary was promulgated by Pius XI. (Among other novelties, it suppressed the recitation of Pss 148, 149, and 150 at Lauds on every day.)

Basically, one Pope cannot bind future popes, as all popes are equal.

There are several threads about this already.

 

[Cathain]

Quo Primum gets dug up and waved around periodically.

Similar language was used when the Breviary was promulgated 2 years earlier by this Pope, but NOBODY said anything when a radically revised Psalter distribution for the Breviary was promulgated by Pius XI. (Among other novelties, it suppressed the recitation of Pss 148, 149, and 150 at Lauds on every day.)

Basically, one Pope cannot bind future popes, as all popes are equal.

There are several threads about this already.

Apologies, perhaps I should have used the search function first

I understand the revisions made prior to the Second Vatican Council, but were they really so radical? Removing some prayers or hymns would seem to be one thing, but is it on the same level as creating a new mass altogether (that is what Novus Ordo Missae literally means)? What I mean to say is that the missal of Pius XI would still be recognisable to St Pius V, whereas it would be questionable if the New Mass would be so since it is different in such a radical way.

Also, if Quo Primum could not grant a perpetual indult for the Tridentine Mass, then why would it be explicitly worded to say so? Is it an invalid encyclical?

 

[Timothysis]

but is it on the same level as creating a new mass altogether (that is what Novus Ordo Missae literally means)?

Every new edition of a missal is a “Novus Ordo,” meaning “new order” of the Mass. The misused term “novus ordo” is not particular to the missal of Pope Paul VI unless used to designate it as the “newest” or “latest” edition of the Missal of the Catholic Church.

Interestingly, Pope Pius V himself, in quo primum, states “This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently…” Pope Pius V calls his missal a “new rite,” something that the so called “traditionalists” maintain as a title only for the missal of Pope Paul VI!

Also, if Quo Primum could not grant a perpetual indult for the Tridentine Mass, then why would it be explicitly worded to say so? Is it an invalid encyclical?

Quo primum’s “perpetual indult” is meant for those celebrating Mass according to the Tridentine missal. It is not intended as a papal mandate that all Masses must be said according to that missal. For one thing, no one has ever supported the position that a current pope can tie the hands of future popes by some type of “executive order.” When one is pope, he is the head of the Church and all authority of previous popes can be found in him. Secondly, as said above, the apostolic letter that established the breviary of Pope Pius V contained the same lines and phrases as quo primum, yet no one took that to mean that the breviary could not be changed, and indeed it was radically changed in the early 20th century with no one blinking an eye.

The problem with documents like quo primum is that we tend to read 500 year old documents with a modern mentality, a habit that is bound to cause confusion.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Please note that what I (and I assume Timothysis) take issue with is not the Tridentine Mass, but the attitude some are showing by appealing to Quo Primum, but divorced from the context in which it was decreed–namely, codification of the Roman Rite at the time of the Protestant Reformation.

Not only was the Roman Rite codified, but it was imposed in all places of the Western Church that did not have a pre-existing rite over 200 years old. Believe it or not, the Missale Romanum was NOT the only Mass Book used in the West at that time.

 

[Cathain]

Please note that what I (and I assume Timothysis) take issue with is not the Tridentine Mass, but the attitude some are showing by appealing to Quo Primum, but divorced from the context in which it was decreed–namely, codification of the Roman Rite at the time of the Protestant Reformation.

I’m unsure what attitude you are perceiving. I’m quite in earnest with my question.
If I am wrong then I welcome correction. I’m interested in the truth, not in promoting particular agendas. What I fail to see here is how the text can be taken out of context.
I understand the circumstances of the times it was declared, but I don’t see how that affects what is being said. The text is very explicit. It either stands or if it is to be rejected now because we live in different times then I’d expect there to be very good reason for denying a perpetual indult which is rather forcibly pronounced (in fact under pain of rather severe penalties). The word “perpetual” appears to make such rescinding rather problematic to say the least.

Not only was the Roman Rite codified, but it was imposed in all places of the Western Church that did not have a pre-existing rite over 200 years old. Believe it or not, the Missale Romanum was NOT the only Mass Book used in the West at that time.

Yes, I’m fully aware of this. The Maronite and other rites of an “ancient” origin were permitted and are still around today. What is being forbidden here is the adoption of new rites. The text is very clear about all this.

 

[Cathain]

Every new edition of a missal is a “Novus Ordo,” meaning “new order” of the Mass. The misused term “novus ordo” is not particular to the missal of Pope Paul VI unless used to designate it as the “newest” or “latest” edition of the Missal of the Catholic Church.

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying here, Timothysis.

So is it correct to say that previous to VII, we had revisions of the same missal from the time of St Pius V? I would find myself in agreement with that.

Is it correct to say that every such revision instituted a completely new rite of mass, or was it just a slight alteration/modification to what was essentially still the Tridentine Mass?

Further from that, can we ask the same questions after VII?
That is to say with regards to the changes made then, did these constitute a completely new rite of Mass, or were they simply slight alterations/modifications to the Tridentine Mass?

Interestingly, Pope Pius V himself, in quo primum, states “This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently…” Pope Pius V calls his missal a “new rite,” something that the so called “traditionalists” maintain as a title only for the missal of Pope Paul VI!

It would clearly be nonsense to maintain such a thing.
Although the Tridentine Mass was based on much earlier legitimate rites, in it’s completed form it was surely new at the time. However, it is not the “newness” of a rite that is questionable per se. It is that subsequent to it being established, we have a Papal Encyclical using explicit langage to guarantee it’s use in perpetuity with a prohibition on any new rite. As far as I’m aware, there was no similar pontifical order like this before Quo Primum, but their certainly was afterwards.

Quo primum’s “perpetual indult” is meant for those celebrating Mass according to the Tridentine missal. It is not intended as a papal mandate that all Masses must be said according to that missal.

That’s right, and I never claimed it did. The encyclical clarly states that older legitimate rites may still be practised, as I mentioned already.
What it does say is that it is not to be superceded by a new rite.

For one thing, no one has ever supported the position that a current pope can tie the hands of future popes by some type of “executive order.”

This is my point, Quo Primum appears to do just that. The language used is deliberately very clear to the point that it almost seems to be intended that it cannot be circumvented.
If the enyclical cannot reasonably make this demand then is it invalid?

When one is pope, he is the head of the Church and all authority of previous popes can be found in him.

True, but each Pope is bound to Catholic doctrine and dogma which is passed down to him. The Pope is the guardian of a heritage, not an innovator.

Secondly, as said above, the apostolic letter that established the breviary of Pope Pius V contained the same lines and phrases as quo primum, yet no one took that to mean that the breviary could not be changed, and indeed it was radically changed in the early 20th century with no one blinking an eye.

Ah ok, this sounds interesting.
Can you elaborate on what the radical changes were at this point?

The problem with documents like quo primum is that we tend to read 500 year old documents with a modern mentality, a habit that is bound to cause confusion.

I can accept the truth of that stament in principle. It’s just that currently I’m at a loss to find a way in which such a very clearly worded text could be interpreted in a non-literal way.

 

[I_Believe]

The problem with documents like quo primum is that we tend to read 500 year old documents with a modern mentality, a habit that is bound to cause confusion.

Big problem indeed. A condemned error actually.

 

[Cathain]

Big problem indeed. A condemned error actually.

I’m perfectly willing to accept the possibility that I may be in error by reading the text literally.
In that case, I ask only that someone help explain it then in the spirit of Christian charity.

 

[Ocarm]

I’m perfectly willing to accept the possibility that I may be in error by reading the text literally.
In that case, I ask only that someone help explain it then in the spirit of Christian charity.

Cathain, several answers have been offered to you so far, and with respect, I haven’t witnessed any lack of charity from responders. Let me try and summarise the case as I understand it using the arguments given, and maybe adding a thought or two of my own.

Quo primum’s “perpetual indult” is meant for those celebrating Mass according to the Tridentine missal. It is not intended as a papal mandate that all Masses must be said according to that missal.

I think this is key. The document is referring to the celebration of this particular rite, and is reifying it in no uncertain terms.

I understand the revisions made prior to the Second Vatican Council, but were they really so radical? Removing some prayers or hymns would seem to be one thing, but is it on the same level as creating a new mass altogether (that is what Novus Ordo Missae literally means)?

If the rite has been declared unchangeable, any change is automatically disallowed. Your point here is that the wording of the encyclical is non-negotiable, by which standard all changes are forbidden. On the other hand, if change can occur, then change can occur.

Is it correct to say that every such revision instituted a completely new rite of mass, or was it just a slight alteration/modification to what was essentially still the Tridentine Mass?

‘Essential’ isn’t a qualifier used in the encyclical; if it was, small changes might be possible. Given that no such latitude is granted, changes must be disallowed.

Further from that, can we ask the same questions after VII?
That is to say with regards to the changes made then, did these constitute a completely new rite of Mass, or were they simply slight alterations/modifications to the Tridentine Mass?

There would have to be a clear standard - stated in the encyclical, since it is being looked to here as a putative instruction on what kind of change can or cannot take place - that would detail when change means amendment only, and when change means a new rite has been developed. No such standard is offered, and again, the language doesn’t imply room for manoeuvre.

Similar language was used when the Breviary was promulgated 2 years earlier by this Pope, but NOBODY said anything when a radically revised Psalter distribution for the Breviary was promulgated by Pius XI.

Which suggests that the stout words of the encyclical are not binding, since liturgical changes always cause a lot of excitement, and there were no less liturgists then than there are now who would have quoted the encyclical had they perceived there to be problems.

For one thing, no one has ever supported the position that a current pope can tie the hands of future popes by some type of “executive order.” When one is pope, he is the head of the Church and all authority of previous popes can be found in him.

And this is also key, because the form of the mass is a matter of discipline, not dogma (even though it inevitably expresses many dogmatic and doctrinal ideas). As such any document proclaiming on such issues cannot be infallibly binding; hence any pope can revoke an indult, becuase it cannot be infallibly granted.

Any argument that an encyclical (or this encyclical in particular) could be infallible because it was declared ex cathedra will not hold, because ex cathedra status cannot be granted to issues of form and discipline, only faith and morals.

Secondly, as said above, the apostolic letter that established the breviary of Pope Pius V contained the same lines and phrases as quo primum, yet no one took that to mean that the breviary could not be changed, and indeed it was radically changed in the early 20th century with no one blinking an eye.

Which would demonstrate that even if the assumed perpetual indult was ever in force, it has by custom and by reception (as per canon law) long been viewed as not perpetually binding, hence its being legitimately ignored.

The problem with documents like quo primum is that we tend to read 500 year old documents with a modern mentality, a habit that is bound to cause confusion.

Big problem indeed. A condemned error actually.

Which point is unequivocal, I think.

Also, if Quo Primum could not grant a perpetual indult for the Tridentine Mass, then why would it be explicitly worded to say so? Is it an invalid encyclical?

No encyclical can be ‘invalid’ as such, but it can be misunderstood, as stated above. I also don’t have any problem with the idea that in a particular historical context, a pope could word a document badly and so cause confusion, although that may or may not be the issue here.

I think what is significant is that history shows that the Church has not acted as though there was a binding perpetual indult, which means that de facto (and in terms of canon law de jure) there is no such indult still at work here. Add to this the inability of a pope to bind his successors, plus the fact that a strict interpretation of this encyclical would have to mean that not even the slightest change could be permissible, and the argument that * Quo Primum Tempore* has continuing authority collapses.

Hope this helps. Its a very interesting question that you’ve asked.

 

[malphono]

Yes, I’m fully aware of this. The Maronite and other rites of an “ancient” origin were permitted and are still around today. What is being forbidden here is the adoption of new rites. The text is very clear about all this.

No, that’s not quite correct. The cited “200 year rule” applied only to Western usages. It had no bearing whatsoever on any of the Oriental or Eastern liturgies. Nor was it intended to.

What it did bear on were those Western usages which had either fallen into disuse for one or another reason (Sarum, Gothic, etc) or had been recently initiated (several local variants in what is now Germany, etc.) Those were suppressed.

The Western usages that had, however, been in continuous use for at least 200 years were retained: these include the geographical usages (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bragan), plus those proper to specific religious Orders (Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, Cistercian).

 

[malphono]

The strong wording of Quo Primum Tempore has been discussed quite a lot in this forum, and I normally avoid getting involved. But here, I’ll make a comment, even though I will probably regret doing so.

I do not argue the principle that one Pope cannot bind a future Pope. We have to take that as a given. At the same time, though, the case of the Missal of Pius V is quite interesting, particularly in light of Summorum Pontificum which is very clear that it was never abrogated.

IMHO, the principle at work here is that something that was legitimately promulgated by HMC and considered holy and efficacious cannot be subsequently deemed to be otherwise. The principle used by Trent to suppress certain liturgical usages was the “200 year” rule and that rule is still intact.

This is not to say that a new liturgical usage could not legitimately be introduced: we have the fact of the OF (whatever one’s opinion of it might be). But what it does say, IMHO, is that the EF remains a valid option since it has been in continuous use for well over the 200 year minimum.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The strong wording of Quo Primum Tempore has been discussed quite a lot in this forum, and I normally avoid getting involved. But here, I’ll make a comment, even though I will probably regret doing so.

I do not argue the principle that one Pope cannot bind a future Pope. We have to take that as a given. At the same time, though, the case of the Missal of Pius V is quite interesting, particularly in light of Summorum Pontificum which is very clear that it was never abrogated.

IMHO, the principle at work here is that something that was legitimately promulgated by HMC and considered holy and efficacious cannot be subsequently deemed to be otherwise. The principle used by Trent to suppress certain liturgical usages was the “200 year” rule and that rule is still intact.

This is not to say that a new liturgical usage could not legitimately be introduced: we have the fact of the OF (whatever one’s opinion of it might be). But what it does say, IMHO, is that the EF remains a valid option since it has been in continuous use for well over the 200 year minimum.

very well said:thumbsup:

 

[cam100]

Also, if Quo Primum could not grant a perpetual indult for the Tridentine Mass, then why would it be explicitly worded to say so? Is it an invalid encyclical?

No, certainly not. The encyclical is valid and authoritative. However, we must understand the proper meaning of phrases such as “in perpetuity” as used in these documents. It means that the instructions given by the document are to be followed, not up to a certain point in time, but continuously, unless and until modified by a proper authority. If never modified, the instructions would stand forever. Pope Pius V was explicit about the fact that no one under the Pope could modify his instructions or the missal. However, a future Pope has equal authority to all other Popes, and can modify such instructions and/or the missal.

As mentioned above, the papal bull Quod a Vobis, also issued by Pope Pius V, used the same type of strong language to instruct clergy to use a new breviary. It issued the same condemnations to those who refused. But Pope Pius X abrogated this document with Divino Afflatu, when he promulgated a new breviary.

 

[I_Believe]

The problem with documents like quo primum is that we tend to read 500 year old documents with a modern mentality, a habit that is bound to cause confusion.

Big problem indeed. A condemned error actually.

I’m perfectly willing to accept the possibility that I may be in error by reading the text literally.
In that case, I ask only that someone help explain it then in the spirit of Christian charity.

I was just agreeing with Tim’s opinion. My reply was not aimed at you