Two Missals, One Rite? Tridentine and Paul VI Missals

[NeelyAnn]

This article was posted on another Catholic forum and I think it would make for interesting discussion here. I will post the article and 2 items from Paul VI that someone posted as a reply to this article. I am really not sure if this discussion should be posted under Traditional Catholicism or Liturgy and the Sacraments. I think Traditional Catholicism is the best category.

**Two Missals, One Rite? Tridentine and Paul VI Missals **

Fr. Mauro Tranquilo

(The original article appeared in “Tradizione Cattolica # 1; this is a translation from the article that appeared in “Tradicion Catolica” Sept.-Oct. 2009 issue)

Quote:

These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

(Motu Propio “Summorum Pontificum” , art. 1).

Quote:

The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

(Letter from P. Benedict XVI, explaining the purpose of “Summorum Pontificum”)

In both the above quotes, Benedict XVI affirms clearly that the Missals of Paul VI and Pius V are two distinct forms of one same Roman Rite, even more, that they are one and the same rite numerically; they would be two different modes of one being, as ice and water are different states of one same substance.

Let us imagine for the space of this short article, that these two Missals are not the expression of two different Churches or of two different doctrines; let us imagine that one is not the product of Centuries of development and the other the work of a few months in some obscure office. Instead let us apply the usual methods and criteria for determining whether two different rites are simply a variant of one another, or if we are dealing with two distinct rites. For example, if we look only in the Latin rite, it is agreed that the Dominican, Lyon, and Braga rites, are only variants of the Roman Rite; while the Ambrosian and Mozarabic are truly independent rites. How do the specialists come to these determinations? What are the criteria that they use? And what can we conclude if we apply these same criteria to the two aforementioned Missals?

**The Lectionary **

It may surprise some that we will begin our inquiry here and not with the Canon; however it is convenient to remember that the new cycle of readings is not only one of the most noted novelties of the new Missal, but also that, the distribution and selection of the texts of Sacred Scripture, is one of the fundamental criteria that is used to identify the specificity of a rite.

It is for this very reason, that the Dominican and Lyonese rites are not considered independent rites; even though they have their own prayers and ceremonies, their Lectionaries are identical to the Roman rite, as are the texts of their Antiphons and with minor variations, so is their music.

The Ambrosian rite (Milan) has its own Lectionary and its own distinct and original music; both of which are clear evidence of its antiquity and specificity. While it is true that the cycle of liturgical readings in its essentials, became fixed before the end of the Patristic era-certainly it was fixed in Rome at the time of St. Leo the Great (390-461), and in Milan at the time of St. Ambrose (340-397). The acceptance of the liturgical Lectionary that was used in Rome, was one of the clearest indications of adhesion to the Roman Rite; as was to occur first in Gaul and then in Spain, when the Roman Rite totally supplanted the Mozarabic Rite; for this reason it is known that this is probably what happened to the Celtic Rites.

The new rite has a festive cycle that is distributed during a period of three years; which is something totally foreign to the Roman Rite. In one of those three years in this Lectionary, it is partially similar to the Roman Rite, but by no means identical; There exists two cycles of readings for the non-feastdays, to which is added a cycle for the feasts of the Saints; again, another element that is completely foreign to the Roman Rite.

The Roman Rite ordinarily features only one reading before the Gospel (and this has always been the case, no matter what some people are now saying); while the new rite has two readings on feastdays. When we consider that one of the distinctive features of the Ambrosian Rite, is precisely having two readings before the Gospel; we can begin to come to the realization what a distance separates these two forms of “of the one Roman rite.”

Furthermore, it cannot be (truthfully) affirmed that the new rite has restored an ancient custom of reading the whole Bible during the Liturgical cycle; While it is true that the Church Fathers sometimes did read entire books of the bible, in order to expound them to the faithful; these where generally extra-liturgical homilies, that did not exclude the readings that were fixed for the different feastdays by the Rite.

continued…

 

[NeelyAnn]

The presumed restoration of the Lectionary as a liturgical book independent of the Missal, speaks for itself; the ancient Lectionary of the Church of Rome has not been restored, but rather a totally new Lectionary has been introduced, which is completely different as to the quantity of the readings, as well as to the selection of the texts.

The re-appearance of the Lectionary as a book that is independent from the Missal; should rather be described as the disappearance from the New Missal of readings that one would normally expect to be contained in it; especially given the fact that there has always been only one book that contained all of the readings. And this is due to other factors which we will now begin to examine, and which are also equally foreign to the Roman Rite.

**The Ministers **

The plurality of liturgical books in the new Missal, derives from the plurality of ministers that must use them; If the readings where introduced into the traditional Missal, it was with the intention of facilitating the celebration of the Mass for the priest who would read them at the altar; and the use of one book was specifically maintained for the ministers that had to sing the propers in the solemn Mass.

The new Mass on the other hand, allows for anybody, including laypeople (men and women) to read all of the texts (except the Gospel), from the pulpit during the Mass; whether it is a high or low Mass. For this reason, there was no longer any purpose to continue to include these in the Missal. We therefore hit on another important difference between the new “Pauline” Mass and the Roman Rite: The distribution of the readings amongst various different people during the Mass. In the Roman Rite during Low Mass, it was the priest who did all of the readings; in the solemn High Mass, a Subdeacon reads the Epistle and a Deacon, the Gospel. In Milan, during the celebrations in the Cathedral of the Ambrosian Rite, the readings are also distributed amongst the Subdeacons and Deacons, depending on the solemnity of the celebration.

In the new Mass, the ministers have also lost other functions, which were typical of the Roman Rite; for example, the Subdeacon has disappeared, which is something without precedent not only in the Roman Rite, but also with all of the know rites of both the East and the West. The assigning of different roles to the different inferior ministers in the Mass, is something typical of the different rites that are not related to each other; but here, this change cannot be called a “variation”, but rather as something totally unprecedented. Another example: in all of the known rites, nobody inferior to a Deacon can be a minister of the Eucharist; which means it is something received from the Apostles, and belongs to the deposit of the Faith; but in the “Pauline” Missal, lay people, not only do the readings, but also distribute Communion.

**The Calendar **

It is well known that one of the distinguishing features of a rite, is its calendar; this includes not only for the feast days of the Saints, but also for the disposition of the whole liturgical year; so much so, that both calendars are considered as one. The “Pauline” rite has profoundly modified the feasts of the Saints (a greater part of the feasts days of the Saints have been changed); and the seasonal calendar has been heavily modified also.
Furthermore the Roman Rite has as one of its peculiar traits, to give to the feast days of the Saints a certain preeminence over that of the season, due to its relation to the celebration of local feasts. This preeminence had certainly been diminished by the reforms of both St. Pius X and John XXIII; but Paul VI carried this aspect of diminution, to new extremes; but as in the other reforms, this is also one of the points of differentiation between one rite and another. For example, in contrast to the Roman rite, the Ambrosian rite, had always given the temporal cycle preeminence from remotest antiquity.

**The Canon **

The concept of “Canon” (or “fixed rule”, or prayer of Consecration) which was common of the Western rites has totally disappeared from the “Pauline’’ rite.
The Oriental rites do posses more than one “Anaphora”, but their use is not left up to the free election of the celebrant; for they have their designated days fixed by the rite, and they are of Patristic origin. This variation is another important difference between the new and old Missals; and it does not make any difference, that one of the “Eucharistic Prayers” in the new Missal is similar to the Roman Canon.

Another difference is that the introduction to the form of consecration in the eucharistic prayers of the new Missal vary from one to another; the two dominant forms are: the one given by St. Paul and the other given in the Gospel, and these are alleged to be a sign of the antiquity of the corresponding rite, according to some experts. The Western rites generally say:“Qui pridie quan pateretur” and the Oriental ones “In qua nocte tradbatur.’’ The Pauline rite uses both and others of more recent concoction.

continue…

 

[NeelyAnn]

**Other Differences **

It would be difficult to make a list of all of the differences between the two Missals, especially the enormous differences in the Ceremonials that would carry much weight in making any evaluation of a rite. Most particularly, the placing of the priest on the chair and not at the Altar during the first part of the Mass; the insertion of the so called “prayer of the faithful”; which had fallen into disuse in the Roman Rite; and which never was carried out before as it is now; on the contrary, fixed litanic formulas were used, that do not resemble the actual prayers from the current “orational” in any way, and the use of a said “orational” book was unknown in ancient times.

Some other examples: The recitation of the Our Father by the priest and people together (as in the East), the changing of the time of the recital of the Agnus Dei, the permission to use leavened bread….

We do not have time to go in to the problem of the new Divine Office, even though this is another characteristic trait of each distinct rite. The New Mass has a new office that has no relation either in the arrangement of the Canonical hours, the Psalter or in its structure, to the Roman Breviary, whether it is the classical Breviary or the one Reformed by St. Pius X. We could say the same or more about the new forms for administering the Sacraments and the Sacramentals.

**Conclusion **

It seems that we have abundantly demonstrated from a liturgical perspective (even if this was hardly necessary), how the new Missal and the Roman Missal are two different rites and not two different forms of one unique rite. This proves how gratuitous was the assertions in both the “Motu Proprio” and the “Letter to the Bishops” of the contrary opinion. But we will keep on repeating even to the point of nausea, that the great difference between the two rites, is not the use of two daffiest languages, which express the same concepts (as is the case with the other traditional rites of the Church), but rather the use of two totally different languages to express two different and incompatible concepts of the Church, The Sacrifice, the Priesthood and the Real Presence; and this fact explains better than any other, why 90% of the bishops are opposed to the traditional Mass; this proportion corresponds to the rejection by the same percentage of bishops of the Catholic dogmas that are intimately linked to the traditional Mass, and which they wish to have no part of.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Now for the reply that someone posted on the other forum using Pope Paul VI’s words:

**Pope Paul VI: Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969 **

Our Dear Sons and Daughters:

1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].
2. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.
3. It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.
4. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.
5. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation. …
6. … A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church *. This moment is shaking the Church…
7. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.
8. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?
9. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic. …
10. … But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful “should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, the Our Father” (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19). …
11. But there is still a practical difficulty, which the excellence of the sacred renders not a little important. How can we celebrate this new rite when we have not yet got a complete missal, and there are still so many uncertainties about what to do?
12. To conclude, it will be helpful to read to you some directions from the competent office, namely the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. Here they are: "As regards the obligation of the rite:

1. For the Latin text: Priests who celebrate in Latin, in private or also in public, in cases provided for by the legislation, may use either the Roman Missal or the new rite until November 28, 1971. If they use the Roman Missal, they may nevertheless make use of the three new anaphoras and the Roman Canon, having regard to the provisions respecting the last text (omission of some saints, conclusions, etc.). They may moreover recite the readings and the prayer of the faithful in the vernacular. If they use the new rite, they must follow the official text, with the concessions as regards the vernacular indicated above. …

With Our Apostolic Benediction. (L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English 4 December 1969*

 

[NeelyAnn]

Also from Pope Paul VI, one week earlier:

**Paul VI: Address to a General Audience, November 19, 1969 **

Our Dear Sons and Daughters:

1. We wish to draw your attention to an event about to occur in the Latin Catholic Church: the introduction of the liturgy of the new rite of the Mass. It will become obligatory in Italian dioceses from the First Sunday of Advent, which this year falls on November 30. The Mass will be celebrated in a rather different manner from that in which we have been accustomed to celebrate it in the last four centuries, from the reign of St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, down to the present.
2. This change has something astonishing about it, something extraordinary. This is because the Mass is regarded as the traditional and untouchable expression of our religious worship and the authenticity of our faith. We ask ourselves, how could such a change be made? What effect will it have on those who attend Holy Mass? Answers will be given to these questions, and to others like them, arising from this innovation. You will hear the answers in all the Churches. They will be amply repeated there and in all religious publications, in all schools where Christian doctrine is taught. We exhort you to pay attention to them. In that way you will be able to get a clearer and deeper idea of the stupendous and mysterious notion of the Mass. …
3. How could such a change be made? Answer: It is due to the will expressed by the Ecumenical Council held not long ago. …
4. This reform puts an end to uncertainties, to discussions, to arbitrary abuses. It calls us back to that uniformity of rites and feeling proper to the Catholic Church …
5. The second question is: What exactly are the changes?
6. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. … Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.
7. It is not so … The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.
8. The unity of the Lord’s Supper, of the Sacrifice on the cross of the re-presentation and the renewal of both in the Mass, is inviolably affirmed and celebrated in the new rite just as they were in the old. …
9. In the new rite you will find the relationship between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, strictly so called, brought out more clearly… You will also see other marvelous features of our Mass. …

With Our Apostolic Benediction.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes one rite because this is what Trent said:

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 every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

 

[chrisb]

Before the Tridentine Rite was promulgated throughout the Western Churches… was there any resistance to it’s reception? What about the promulgation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom over that of St. James and others?

I don’t personally believe that the Promulgation of the Liturgy of Paul VI was any different although I believe great liberties were taken in it’s translations. We must recognize the tender within the populace of the 1960’s and 70’s. There was a great rise to the rejection of what was thought of as pretense of formalism and a desire to return to more simplistic expressions of faith. This wasn’t just among us Catholics you could see the very same thing within other groups like Anglicanism and Orthodoxy.

 

[Joe17]

They are as different as night and day. You have shown that Paul VI himself saw this. That some are now saying different doesn’t take away from that fact. A reading of the Ordinary, as well as what you brought up concerning the lectionary and other changes show that. Pope St Pius V sought to protect the Mass from any possible elements that could have come from Protestant practices. The New Mass was influenced by Protestantism. It could not have come from the Church.

Joe

 

[chrisb]

They are as different as night and day. You have shown that Paul VI himself saw this. That some are now saying different doesn’t take away from that fact. A reading of the Ordinary, as well as what you brought up concerning the lectionary and other changes show that. Pope St Pius V sought to protect the Mass from any possible elements that could have come from Protestant practices. The New Mass was influenced by Protestantism. It could not have come from the Church.

Joe

As I have understood it, the modern Liturgy was not an attempt for the Holy Roman Catholic Church to become Protestant but, through Charity, to create a Liturgy that might be acceptable to all and yet still be the canon of Catholicity.

If we don’t see this through the lens of Charity… we honestly do this Liturgy and the Catholic Church a grave injustice… in my humble opinion.

We share more with our separated brethren than that which separates us… for Christ is greater than he who is the world.

I can appreciate those who feel that this charity has been misused by those who sought to use it as a means of rebellion against the Church but that was not it’s intention. Again in my humble opinion.

 

[ProVobis]

Before the Tridentine Rite was promulgated throughout the Western Churches… was there any resistance to it’s reception? What about the promulgation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom over that of St. James and others?

There really was no true “Tridentine” Rite. The Traditional Latin Mass as we know it was merely a continuation of the ancient Latin Mass with some alterations which were codified by Pius V in 1570. At the same time all liturgies less than 200 years old were invalidated.

I don’t personally believe that the Promulgation of the Liturgy of Paul VI was any different although I believe great liberties were taken in it’s translations. We must recognize the tender within the populace of the 1960’s and 70’s.

The Novus Ordo was promulgated in Latin. Very few have denied the validity of its Latin texts. But you’re right, the translations have always been criticized, sometimes to the point of being called heretical, scandalous, and/or invalid.

 

[chrisb]

There really was no true “Tridentine” Rite. The Traditional Latin Mass as we know it was merely a continuation of the ancient Latin Mass with some alterations which were codified by Pius V in 1570. At the same time all liturgies less than 200 years old were invalidated.

Correct if I am in error but where did the local Liturgies go then? Ambrosian, Gallic, etc go? Most scholars admit that these where put down to promulgate a more uniform ‘Latin’ Liturgy in the Western Church.

The Novus Ordo was promulgated in Latin. Very few have denied the validity of its Latin texts. But you’re right, the translations have always been criticized, sometimes to the point of being called heretical, scandalous, and/or invalid.

No disagreement from me.

 

[ProVobis]

Correct if I am in error but where did the local Liturgies go then? Ambrosian, Gallic, etc go? Most scholars admit that these where put down to promulgate a more uniform ‘Latin’ Liturgy in the Western Church.

I believe those Rites predated 1370 AD. If so they are still valid. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Pope Paul VI celebrated the Ambrosian Rite at least once.

 

[chrisb]

I believe those Rites predated 1370 AD. If so they are still valid. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Pope Paul VI celebrated the Ambrosian Rite at least once.

So what would have caused the Latin Liturgy to supersede them? What happened?

 

[malphono]

Correct if I am in error but where did the local Liturgies go then? Ambrosian, Gallic, etc go? Most scholars admit that these where put down to promulgate a more uniform ‘Latin’ Liturgy in the Western Church.

I believe those Rites predated 1370 AD. If so they are still valid.

The Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bragan Rites survived Trent, (as did the Lyonais usage of the Gallican Rite), since they had been in continuous use for more than 200 years. So too, on that same basis, did the Dominican, Carmelite, Cistercian, and Carthusian Rites, (and technically the Praemonstratentian Rite as well). All continue to survive today. (The Carmelite Rite is in a “coma” but still exists on the books. The Praemonstratentian Rite was abandoned by vote of General Chapter shortly after Trent, but could, in theory, be restored the same way. I believe that the Lyonais usage of the Gallican has begun to resurface as the local usus antiquior since Summorum Pontificum.)

In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Pope Paul VI celebrated the Ambrosian Rite at least once.

Remember that Paul VI had been Archbishop of Milan and as such he was Capo Rito of the Ambrosian Rite. Although he was from Piemonte, when he became Archbishop of Milan he embraced the Ambrosian Rite with an unexpected interest, and actually became a prime force in its preservation and restoration. In the wake of Vatican II and the advent of the Roman Rite OF, his successor as Archbishop of Milan was on the road to suppressing the Ambrosian Rite, but he was thwarted by Paul VI. It is thanks to the direct personal intervention of Paul VI that the Ambrosian Rite survived the Novus Ordo.

 

[brotherhrolf]

My observations as being a teenager in the pews in the late 60s.

I still have my 1962 St. Joseph Missal given to me when I was Confirmed in 1963. It is well worn and obviously used as is my wife’s. My wife also has a 1965 St. Joseph Missal which is in pristine condition. Why? It was not used.

Once the Mass changed and before the NO formally appeared on the First Sunday of Advent, 1969, there were a series of announcements from the pulpit once or twice a month. (In two weeks we will no longer chant the Gloria). The 1965 Missal was useless.

There were no leaflet missalettes in the pews in 1962. There were in 1968. The NO may have been promulgated in Latin but I didn’t even know that it could be said in Latin until I saw the Peruvian priests on EWTN a few years back!

For all practical purposes, y’all, the TLM was THE Mass that our ancestors knew as immigrants. I am of English ancestry. Does that mean my ancestors knew about the Sarum Rite? I’m Irish too. Does that mean that my ancestors would have even the vaguest notion about a Celtic rite?. I can assure you that the Mass celebrated out there on the hedge rows in Ireland was not a Celtic rite, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, etc.

I was a teenager in the late 60s attending a Catholic boys’ high school. I sang in the choir. In 1968 we sang in Latin. In 1969 we sang Simon and Garfunkle at my graduation.

I think that very few of you have any understanding about how rapid and how gut wrenching the changes were. My father was Protestant back then and never attended Mass with us until 1968 and don’t give me any flack about my father. He was the one who got me up and drove me to all those TLMs I served at 6 AM in the morning.

I hate to differ with His Holiness but the Mass had been “messed with” in the United States since 1967 and it was a brutal transition.

 

[ServantofMary]

Here’s some interesting quotes:

Father Joseph Gelineau SJ, a “peritus” or “expert” present at Vatican II “To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”

Professor Peter L. Berger, a Lutheran sociologist, “If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.”

Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, “Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.”

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, architect of the New Mass, "We must strip from our Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”

 

[chrisb]

Here’s some interesting quotes:

Father Joseph Gelineau SJ, a “peritus” or “expert” present at Vatican II “To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”

Professor Peter L. Berger, a Lutheran sociologist, “If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.”

Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, “Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.”

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, architect of the New Mass, "We must strip from our Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”

These appear to be English Translations of these individuals… who translated them and do you have the actual origins in their native tongues?

 

[NeelyAnn]

Yes one rite because this is what Trent said:

But Pope Paul VI called it a new rite himself. Read through what he said above. What should we make of that?

 

[ProVobis]

But Pope Paul VI called it a new rite himself. Read through what he said above. What should we make of that?

Good question. The Novus Ordo appears to be a clear violation of Trent. The question is whether it was done deliberately. It also begs the question of whether Trent was infallible or only parts of it were. In any case, an anathema is an anathema.

 

[Lujack]

Good question. The Novus Ordo appears to be a clear violation of Trent. The question is whether it was done deliberately. It also begs the question of whether Trent was infallible or only parts of it were. In any case, an anathema is an anathema.

That’s not the question. The question is which parts of Trent were discipline and which parts were dogma. Trent’s statement on the Mass is clearly discipline, not dogma, otherwise Pius XII could not have made his revisions to the rite of the Mass.

The Popes have the authority to change disciplines; the Novus Ordo did not violate the discipline that the Mass was not to be changed, it modified it. If a bishop or another subordinate were to have changed the Mass, that would be a violation of Trent, but Blessed John XXIII and Pope Paul VI had the authority to change the discipline.