otm:
. Reading through the various threads shows that there is a good bit of selective sourcing as to why the Pauline rite was promulgated. Given that there was going to be a shift, and that post Trent, the majority of liturgies existing pre-Trent were surpressed, with only a few liturgies continuing along with the universal Tridentine rite, I woud assume that the Church felt that there was validity in having one rite as the norm and replaced the Tridentine rite with the Pauline rite as the norm of the Church. .
Lets not confuse the issue. The reason St. Pius V suppressed other missals was not just because he one day decided that he felt like it, but rather because he thought he had to in order to guarantee that a missal was authentically Catholic. After the reformation the protestant errors began spreading all throughout Europe. Some of these errors started to show up in local “usages”
. In order to guarantee that a rite of Mass was free from the protestant errors St. Pius V suppressed rites which could not demonstrate authenticity prior to the protestant revolution. By only allowing rites over 200 years old to continue St. Pius V could guarantee that all Catholic rites were free of the protestant errors.
What Paul VI did after Vatican II no other Pope had ever done. He set one missal up against another.
By the way: Pope Benedict XVI completely backs up what I have just said. Quote:
"I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since* nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy.** The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal.
The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal.
But the historical truth of the matter is different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries.
Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again,
but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed.
There is no such thing as a “Missal of Pius V”, created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth. The new feature that came to the fore after the Council of Trent was of a different nature.
The irruption of the Reformation had above all taken the concrete form of liturgical “reforms”. It was not just a matter of there being a Catholic Church and a Protestant Church alongside one another. The split in the Church occurred almost imperceptibly and found its most visible and historically most decisive manifestation in the changes in the liturgy. These changes, in turn, took very different forms at the local level, so that here, too,
one frequently could not ascertain the boundary between what was still Catholic and what was no longer Catholic.
Consequences could only be tragic.
** In this confusing situation… and by the existing liturgical pluralism inherited from the Middle Ages, the pope decided that now the Missale Romanum **- the missal of the city of Rome -
was to be introduced as reliably Catholic in every place that could not demonstrate its liturgy to be at least two hundred years old. Wherever the existing liturgy was that old, it could be preserved because its Catholic character would then be assured.
In this case we cannot speak of the prohibition of a previous missal that had formerly been approved as valid. The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic…
"
…the old building was demolished… setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority;
this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something “made”, not something given in advance…
*
(Milestones, Pope Benedict XVI)
"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process -* with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."***
Pope Benedict XVI
Preface to the book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Mgr. Klaus Gamber.
