Two Missals, One Rite? Tridentine and Paul VI Missals

[brotherhrolf]

Y’all treat the topic as if it was some obscure academic question.Did any of you go through the change as I did? What may have gone on in Rome is NOT what we in the pews experienced in the pews in the US.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Just one thing:

The Bull Quo primum calls the Pian missal a “new rite,” too.

And there has always been a variety of rites for the Eucharistic Sacrfice in the Church.

While neither form of the Roman rite answers my own spiritual needs, I receive and respect ALL authorized Liturgies of the church.

 

[ProVobis]

Just one thing:

The Bull Quo primum calls the Pian missal a “new rite,” too.

In what sense is the old Latin Mass a new rite? It is at least 1600 years old.

Lujack. The Pope is a pastor; in fact he is the Supreme Pastor. As for it being a “discipline” that may be true but, according to Trent, it’s still anathema. Or did Vatican II remove all anathemas from the books? Seems as if the legal thing to do is to remove the anathema first, then change the “discipline” according to necessity. (And I still maintain the Novus Ordo was necessary to subdue the liturgical chaos of the 60’s.)

 

[Lujack]

Y’all treat the topic as if it was some obscure academic question.Did any of you go through the change as I did? What may have gone on in Rome is NOT what we in the pews experienced in the pews in the US.

I guess I really can’t understand what happened at the end of the 1960’s. My father didn’t enter high school under 1969, and my mother until 1973, so they were a little bit younger and I don’t think quite as upset by the changes that happened, because they hadn’t lived through as much as went on before. On the other hand, though, we also live in the Northeast, where things might have gone differently (my dad is bothered more by the disappearance of the urban neighborhood where he lived, the closing of the elementary school he went to, and the soon-to-happen closing of his old parish). In that respect, you know more than any of us what was going in the pew in the United States.

On the other hand, though, it is an important academic question to answer. If Blessed John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were violating a dogma of Trent, then the entire Novus Ordo Mass is illegitimate, and both Popes committed very serious sins in redoing the Mass. That’s important to me for two reasons: I really admire Blessed John XXIII, and the Novus Ordo Mass is the only Mass I’ve ever known (if it was suddenly and without warning taken away, I’d be pretty upset myself). So while it may be an academic question, the answers have a lot of importance, I guess.

 

[Aramis]

On the Absence of Subdeacons…
Several of the eastern churches have stopped ordaining subdeacons; while they have not forbidden those ordinations, they simply are not done. The Ruthenian church is one that has all but eradicated the minor orders… by apathetically ignoring them, even for seminarians.

Further, as with all minor orders, long standing tradition has held (in the east) that in their absence, a layman may perform their duties, often fully vested despite no ordination.

The Roman Church considered subdeacons major orders from at least 1200 on until Vatican II; the Roman subdeacon was an anomaly; its absence no more of one than its presence. That said, nothing done liturgically by a subdeacon in the various Roman missals between Trent and Vatican II, none are actions requiring ordination to major orders. Lay readers were authorized, even if seldom used, well before trent, and ordained lectors could be used even in low masses, if available.

As to the poster thinking his ancestors wouldn’t know the various rites…
If his ancestors were from the south of england before trent, odds are that they’d seen a Sarum liturgy at least occasionally; it was used as a festal mass for the major feasts. In fact, it still is… by the high-church Anglicans… in both Latin and English. The Celtic was supplanted centuries before; the Gallican faded likewise… both to the Roman missal. But go back far enough, and yes, your ancestors probably knew some local missal rather than the Roman.

The Ambrosian, Bragan, Mozarabic, and Dalmatian missals all were in use up to V II, again, mostly for major feasts rather than daily use… but subject to the whims of their archbishps. The Dalmation was essentially Roman, but a long stable translation into Church Slavonic for Dalmatia and a neighboring diocese. It, too, was preserved by Trent for its antiquity…

 

[malphono]

On the Absence of Subdeacons…
Several of the eastern churches have stopped ordaining subdeacons; while they have not forbidden those ordinations, they simply are not done. The Ruthenian church is one that has all but eradicated the minor orders… by apathetically ignoring them, even for seminarians.

That’s a shame. But on the bright side, others keep them and have even expanded their application beyond seminaries to so-called “permanent” candidates.

Further, as with all minor orders, long standing tradition has held (in the east) that in their absence, a layman may perform their duties, often fully vested despite no ordination.

The Roman Church considered subdeacons major orders from at least 1200 on until Vatican II; the Roman subdeacon was an anomaly; its absence no more of one than its presence. That said, nothing done liturgically by a subdeacon in the various Roman missals between Trent and Vatican II, none are actions requiring ordination to major orders. Lay readers were authorized, even if seldom used, well before trent, and ordained lectors could be used even in low masses, if available.

Yes, that’s quite right. How the sub-diaconate came to be classified as a “major order” in the Roman Church is really an oddity. OTOH, and if I recall correctly, even in pre-conciliar times the liturgical role of sub-deacon in the Roman Rite could, in case of need, be filled by a layman, and fully vested at that. It wasn’t done often, but I seem to recall that it was done.

The Ambrosian, Bragan, Mozarabic, and Dalmatian missals all were in use up to V II, again, mostly for major feasts rather than daily use… but subject to the whims of their archbishps. The Dalmation was essentially Roman, but a long stable translation into Church Slavonic for Dalmatia and a neighboring diocese. It, too, was preserved by Trent for its antiquity…

Not to repeat [post=6152926]myself[/post], but the first three are still in use. I don’t know about the Glagolithic recension of the Roman Rite.

 

[chrisb]

Y’all treat the topic as if it was some obscure academic question.Did any of you go through the change as I did? What may have gone on in Rome is NOT what we in the pews experienced in the pews in the US.

I’m in my 40’s so I barely remember going to Latin Mass with my Grandfather in the 70’s. After Vatican II my mother (Catholic) married my father (Baptist) and I didn’t get back to Catholicism till I was in my 30’s so we were part of that great number who fell away.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\In what sense is the old Latin Mass a new rite? It is at least 1600 years old.\

This is what St. Pius V called the missal he was promulgating:

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.

**papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm

Emphasis added.

If you don’t like the label “new rite” applied to the Tridentine Mass, then pray to St. Pius V about it, because I’m just quoting his own words.**

 

[ProVobis]

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.

Then what you’re saying is the both the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo were illegal? Surprised no one caught this in 1570. Or is there a just a problem with the translations? Maybe neither should be called a “new rite.” What are we laymen supposed to think?

 

[Lujack]

Then what you’re saying is the both the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo were illegal? Surprised no one caught this in 1570. Or is there a just a problem with the translations? Maybe neither should be called a “new rite.” What are we laymen supposed to think?

Why do you continue to ignore my post? The ban against changes to the Mass is a discipline that Popes have the authority to change if they wish. All of Trent was binding, but not all of Trent is immutable dogma. That portion of Trent was a binding discipline, and a successive Pope has the authority to change it.

 

[ProVobis]

Why do you continue to ignore my post? The ban against changes to the Mass is a discipline that Popes have the authority to change if they wish. All of Trent was binding, but not all of Trent is immutable dogma. That portion of Trent was a binding discipline, and a successive Pope has the authority to change it.

Rest assured you’re not on my ignore list (read #23) but I can’t buy that. Discipline, shmicipline. Why have a council and pronounce anathemas, if it can be that easily changed by a later Pope? The Pope at the time of the writing of that anathema could have written the same thing and saved a lot of trouble, I would think. Didn’t the Council of Trent mean anything at all?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

\In what sense is the old Latin Mass a new rite? It is at least 1600 years old.\

This is what St. Pius V called the missal he was promulgating:

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm

Emphasis added.

If you don’t like the label “new rite” applied to the Tridentine Mass, then pray to St. Pius V about it, because I’m just quoting his own words.

I just read through the Latin original, as well as an Enlgish translation provided just below the Latin, and I didn’t see the words “new rite” anywhere. I’m far from fluent in Latin, but it appears the translation found at Papalencyclicals.net, is faulty. I’ll provide the paragraphs in question below as well as a link to the entire encyclical and translation.
Quo Primum:

Ut autem a sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, ceterarum ecclesiarum matre et magistra, tradita ubique amplectantur omnes et observent, ne in posterum perpetuis futuris temporibus in omnibus Christiani orbis Provinciarum Patriarchalibus, Cathedralibus, Collegiatis et Parochialibus, saecularibus, et quorumvis Ordinum, monasteriorum, tam virorum, quam mulierum, etiam militiarum regularibus, ac sine cura Ecclesiis vel Capellis, in quibus Missa conventualis alta voce cum Choro, aut demissa, celebrari juxta Romanae Ecclesiae ritum consuevit vel debet alias quam juxta Missalis a nobis editi formulam decantetur, aut recitetur, etiamsi eaedem Ecclesiae quovis modo exenptae, Apostolicae Sedis indulto, consuetudine, privilegio, etiam juramento, confirmatione Apostolica, vel aliis quibusvis facultatibus munitae sint; nisi ab ipsa prima institutione a Sede Apostolica adprobata, vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit: a quibus, ut praefatam celebrandi constitutionem vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus; sic si Missale hoc, quod nunc in lucem edi curavimus, iisdem magis placeret, de Episcopi, vel Praelati. Capitulique universi consensu, ut quibusvis non obstantibus, juxta illud Missas celebrare possint, permittimus; ex aliis vero omnibus Ecclesiis praefatis eorumdem Missalium usum tollendo, illaque penitus et omnio rejiciendo, ac huic Missali nostro nuper editio, nihil unquam addendum, detrahendum, aut immutandum esse decernendo, sub indignationis nostrae poena, hac nostra perpetuo valitura constitutione statuimus et ordinamus.

Here’s how they translate it:
Quo Primum:

Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever, saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over 200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See’s institution and confirmation of the Church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than 200 years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid. Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to its rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity. We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.

Here’s a link to the website with the Latin original and English translation below.

It looks to me as if the underlined portion, which says those of another Rite may use the new missal if they choose, was mistranslated in such a way that it refers to the new missal as a “new rite”. We need someone fluent in Latin to sort this out. Anybody?

 

[Lujack]

Rest assured you’re not on my ignore list (read #23) but I can’t buy that. Discipline, shmicipline. Why have a council and pronounce anathemas, if it can be that easily changed by a later Pope? The Pope at the time of the writing of that anathema could have written the same thing and saved a lot of trouble, I would think. Didn’t the Council of Trent mean anything at all?

Because the anathemas were extremely relevant at the time, and because the Council specified a very important rule that has not been changed: no one other than the Pope has the authority to change the Mass. Others may write the rite (pun intended, as I’m arguing that there is just one rite in two forms), but only the Holy Father himself has the authority to make changes or to approve them.

As I understand it, that was a major change to the current system that Trent was making: regions could no longer develop their own versions of the Mass. In my understanding, the Sarum Rite (and others like it) was not made or approved by Rome, it just developed out of local traditions and decisions. All that came to an end with Trent, and any future changes to the Mass (such as those made by Pius XII, which would also be considered illegitimate if Pius had no authority to change the Mass) would be made, or at least approved, in Rome.

That’s a major change, wouldn’t you agree? And its made more emphatic by the pronouncement of anathema on anybody who just goes about writing rites as they go along.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

To add to my above post (#32), I will give the two different English translations of the section in question.

The first one is from papalencyclicals.net, and appears to be faulty.

This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church.

**This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. **

However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

All other of the churches…

The next is the more accurate translation. Notice how much to two translations differ.

This ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men, including the military Orders, or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church.

**To apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever, saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over 200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See’s institution and confirmation of the church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than 200 years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid. **

Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to its rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding.

All other churches…

From my reading, the Latin is in agreement with this translation. Unless I missed it, the words “new rite” don’t appear anywhere.

 

[ProVobis]

I just read through the Latin original, as well as an Enlgish translation provided just below the Latin, and I didn’t see the words “new rite” anywhere. I’m far from fluent in Latin, but it appears the translation found at Papalencyclicals.net, is faulty. I’ll provide the paragraphs in question below as well as a link to the entire encyclical and translation.

Good work, UR!

 

[ProVobis]

Because the anathemas were extremely relevant at the time, and because the Council specified a very important rule that has not been changed: no one other than the Pope has the authority to change the Mass.

Paul VI delegated the revision of the Missal to Bugnini, as we all know. Once he was done with it, Pope Paul saw that it was drastically different from the TLM and called it the Novus Ordo. Bugnini objected; he wanted to call it a revision, figuring that it would abrogate the missals of 1962, 1965 forever. But he was not successful. So, in a way, we can thank Pope Paul VI (and the Holy Spirit) for preserving Pope John’s Missal (Missal of 1962).

Everything seems to have worked itself out in the end. No new rite but two forms of the same rite. Pope Benedict is a genius, no?

 

[corsair]

All of the discussions on the last 3 pages are interesting. The Dominican Rite is still celebrated in the Western Province at least once a month in several parishes. I think there may be some question as to rubrics to be used but I would definately yield to Fr. Augustine Thompson, OP.

I really enjoy the Dominican Rite but prefer the Roman Confeitior and several other parts. But it is beautiful.

Good discussions UR and Provobis.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Why do you continue to ignore my post? The ban against changes to the Mass is a discipline that Popes have the authority to change if they wish. All of Trent was binding, but not all of Trent is immutable dogma. That portion of Trent was a binding discipline, and a successive Pope has the authority to change it.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166)."

 

[ProVobis]

Bump for bpbasilphx. See posts #32-34.

 

[Aramis]

All of the discussions on the last 3 pages are interesting. The Dominican Rite is still celebrated in the Western Province at least once a month in several parishes. I think there may be some question as to rubrics to be used but I would definately yield to Fr. Augustine Thompson, OP.

I really enjoy the Dominican Rite but prefer the Roman Confeitior and several other parts. But it is beautiful.

Good discussions UR and Provobis.

One of those parishes is in Seattle WA; another is Holy Family Cathedral in Anchorage AK.