Was the New Mass ever promulgated?

[RSiscoe]

I found this article very interesting and thought I would pass it along.

http://www.oltyn.com/PopePiusXII.jpg

Msgr. Eugene Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, made the astonishing prophecy on the future upheavel in the Church:

**"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past.
"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, ‘Where have they taken Him?’"
******- Roche, Pie XII Devant L’Historie, p. 52-53

The title “The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy,” is not my own. It comes from a discourse of Pope Pius XII, who saw the imminent possibility of a crisis in faith and spoke of the Church doubting as Peter once doubted, recalling St. Peter’s denial of Our Lord on the night of His Passion.

One method of the heretics for attacking the Church is to infiltrate the Catholic hierarchy and then change the liturgy to mute its explicit profession of faith, making the liturgy appear to uphold heretical doctrine. Pope Pius XII warned of this danger, “the suicide of altering the faith in the liturgy”.

Many priests and faithful see no problem with the new Rite of Mass. They consider themselves upholders of Catholic tradition and are outspokenly anti-Modernist. But the subtleties of the devil are so great that they are tricked into consenting to the Modernist position without realizing it. It is like the treatment given to frogs: you put them into hot water and they will jump out of the water immediately, but if you put them into cold water and slowly heat it, they don’t notice the increase of heat until it’s too late. They’ve been cooked.

I have seen this in the example of many Catholic bishops. Twenty-five, thirty years ago they were the staunchest arch-conservatives. But little by little they compromised, and toward the end of their mission as heads of their dioceses, they still considered themselves staunchly arch-conservative, upholding the apostolic traditions of the Church; but these men did not realize that hardly anyone else thought of them that way anymore. They were living in an illusion…

Here is the link to the article: oltyn.com/kramer.htm

 

[kk1727]

I’ve never bought the argument that Pope Paul VI did not properly promulgate the revised missal. No one can question the purpose of the document Missale Romanum, nor that it was intended to be used by the entire Roman Rite in place of the former missal revised by decree of Pope John XXIII in Rubricarum Instructum. Pope Paul VI used it, Pope John Paul I used it, Pope John Paul II used it and revised it, Cardinal Ratzinger uses it, Cardinal Arinze uses it, Cardinal Medina uses it, de facto the missal is currently promulgated by liturgical law with due regard to exceptions made by Ecclesia Dei.

 

[CrusaderNY]

Great article. I hope this is true, it may, along with the defense of V2 being a pastoral and not a dogmatic council, allow the church within the next century (as that is how long it usually takes for the church to wake up) and restore sanity and tradition back to the church, especially the Mass, without having to worry about infallability. There were a wierd undertow for the church to not only install a “New Mass” that no one asked for, but to actually ban a Mass that had been said for centuries, with most of it going back to the 6th century and before. And then to ban it with the penalty of censurship and excommunication, a penalty reserved for Luther, for saying the Old Mass. Padre Pio refused to say the New Mass and drew the wrath of the Vatican.

RSiscoe:

I found this article very interesting and thought I would pass it along.

http://www.oltyn.com/PopePiusXII.jpg

Msgr. Eugene Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, made the astonishing prophecy on the future upheavel in the Church:

**"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past. **
"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, ‘Where have they taken Him?’"
****- Roche, Pie XII Devant L’Historie, p. 52-53

The title “The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy,” is not my own. It comes from a discourse of Pope Pius XII, who saw the imminent possibility of a crisis in faith and spoke of the Church doubting as Peter once doubted, recalling St. Peter’s denial of Our Lord on the night of His Passion.

One method of the heretics for attacking the Church is to infiltrate the Catholic hierarchy and then change the liturgy to mute its explicit profession of faith, making the liturgy appear to uphold heretical doctrine. Pope Pius XII warned of this danger, “the suicide of altering the faith in the liturgy”.

Many priests and faithful see no problem with the new Rite of Mass. They consider themselves upholders of Catholic tradition and are outspokenly anti-Modernist. But the subtleties of the devil are so great that they are tricked into consenting to the Modernist position without realizing it. It is like the treatment given to frogs: you put them into hot water and they will jump out of the water immediately, but if you put them into cold water and slowly heat it, they don’t notice the increase of heat until it’s too late. They’ve been cooked.

I have seen this in the example of many Catholic bishops. Twenty-five, thirty years ago they were the staunchest arch-conservatives. But little by little they compromised, and toward the end of their mission as heads of their dioceses, they still considered themselves staunchly arch-conservative, upholding the apostolic traditions of the Church; but these men did not realize that hardly anyone else thought of them that way anymore. They were living in an illusion…

Here is the link to the article: oltyn.com/kramer.htm

 

[MrS]

Nice addition to the topic. Thanks.
Get ready… a couple of our posters M… K… F… will be here shortly, guns-a-blazin’:yup:

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

CrusaderNY:

Great article. I hope this is true, it may, along with the defense of V2 being a pastoral and not a dogmatic council

I see that old nonsense is still alive and well.

A council is a council, all the documents are binding upon the faithful.

It doesn’t matter if issues addressed by the council are pastoral or dogmatic in nature.

Please show how any other council of the Church is not binding becuase it was pastoral in nature.

No such thing. Just an excuse to rationalize schism.

 

[RSiscoe]

ByzCath:

I see that old nonsense is still alive and well.

A council is a council, all the documents are binding upon the faithful.

It doesn’t matter if issues addressed by the council are pastoral or dogmatic in nature.

Please show how any other council of the Church is not binding becuase it was pastoral in nature.

No such thing. Just an excuse to rationalize schism.

The new mass did not come from Vatican II. Vatican II said that the Mass should be updated, but the New Mass itself came later. Vatican II actually said that, in the Roman rite, “the latin language should be retained”. Therefore, the new mass in the vernacular is not following what Vatican II desired.

What you need to realize is that the new mass did not come from the second Vatican Council. The council ended in 1965 and the new mass came out in 1969. The council asked for a revision in the Mass, but it did not write, nor promulgate, the new Mass. If the Mass was promulgated, it took place in 1969, five years after the Council ended. If you put so much weight in Vatican II, you need to be fighting for the Mass to be in Latin, since that is what Vatican II said.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

RSiscoe:

The new mass did not come from Vatican II. Vatican II said that the Mass should be updated, but the New Mass itself came later. Vatican II actually said that, in the Roman rite, “the latin language should be retained”. Therefore, the new mass in the vernacular is not following what Vatican II desired.

What you need to realize is that the new mass did not come from the second Vatican Council. The council ended in 1965 and the new mass came out in 1969. The council asked for a revision in the Mass, but it did not write, nor promulgate, the new Mass. If the Mass was promulgated, it took place in 1969, five years after the Council ended. If you put so much weight in Vatican II, you need to be fighting for the Mass to be in Latin, since that is what Vatican II said.

I do understand that the Mass did not come from Vatican II.

I know that the call for the reform came from Vatican II.

I am also aware that Latin was retained, as it was and is still. The Mass in the vernacular is an option, yes it sometimes seems like the only way but that is not true.

I pay just as much weight to Vatican II as I do to the Holy Father who promulgated the Mass, again the vernacular vs Latin is not an issue as Latin is still the language of the Latin Catholic Church. The Mass in the vernacular is an option.

 

[Jakub]

David,

I agree with PPXII feelings, and I know how the Byzantine Catholics would react if someone seriously altered their Liturgy.

May I quote St. Thomas Aquinas," It is absurd and a destable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we received from the Fathers of old".

A few tweeks here & there is one thing but a total remodel of Church & Liturgy is another.

Slava Isusu Christu my brother,

james

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Jakub:

David,

I agree with PPXII feelings, and I know how the Byzantine Catholics would react if someone seriously altered their Liturgy.

May I quote St. Thomas Aquinas," It is absurd and a destable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we received from the Fathers of old".

A few tweeks here & there is one thing but a total remodel of Church & Liturgy is another.

Slava Isusu Christu my brother,

james

I understand what you are saying but…

Someone didn’t alter the Liturgy, the Church did it.

The form of the Liturgy is discipline.

Part of the reform was to return to things from the early Church so, technically speaking, traditions were not changed, they were returned to.

To deny the Church the right to make changes to discipline is to deny the Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The editio typica of the Missale Romanum has been properly promulgated in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, by the Apostolic See. There can’t be serious arguments against this, are there?

Padre Pio refused to say the New Mass and drew the wrath of the Vatican.

Do you have a source?

According to *Padre Pio: The True Story *by C. Bernard Ruffin, he was given an indult due to his advanced age, as were many older priests.

Admittedly, I’ve read very little regarding Padre Pio, but your assertion is different from the one book I do have on Padre Pio.

Furthermore, such a thing seems rather inconsistent with the last letter that Padre Pio dictacted to Pope Paul VI:

I know that your heart is suffering much these days in the interest of the Church, for the peace of the world, for the innumerable necessities of the people of the world, but, above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the high teachings that you, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, are giving us… I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated direction. (ibid)

 

[smn]

itsjustdave1988:

According to *Padre Pio: The True Story *by C. Bernard Ruffin, he was given an indult due to his advanced age, as were many older priests.

Padre Pio died in 1968, while the Novus Ordo was being composed.

However, St. Jose Maria Escriva (d. 1975), and many other priests, continued to licitly offer the Traditional Mass after the Novus Ordo’s promulgation (assuming that it was, in fact, promulgated).

Scott

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

On December 4, 1963, Pope Paul VI promulgated Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The document commands that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” It furthermore adds:

But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. (emphasis added) This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants (SC, 36.2).

The “limits” were later extended to the whole Mass by the Roman Pontiff during the promulgation of the second edition as the *editio typica *(1975):

Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was able to acknowledge that “the use of the mother tongue frequently may be of great advantage to the people” and gave permission for its use. The enthusiasm in response to this decision was so great that, under the leadership of the bishops and the Apostolic See, it has resulted in the permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the faithful participate to be in the vernacular for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated (12). Permission to use the vernacular, then, was extended because of a great good: “a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.”

You may disagree that such was prudent, but it certainly was lawfully promulgated by the Roman Pontiff, who has the authority to do so.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

The editio typica of the Missale Romanum has been properly promulgated in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, by the Apostolic See. There can’t be serious arguments against this, are there?
Do you have a source?

Padre Pio refused to say the New Mass and drew the wrath of the Vatican.

According to *Padre Pio: The True Story *by C. Bernard Ruffin, he was given an indult due to his advanced age, as were many older priests.

Admittedly, I’ve read very little regarding Padre Pio, but your assertion is different from the one book I do have on Padre Pio.

Furthermore, such a thing seems rather inconsistent with the last letter that Padre Pio dictacted to Pope Paul VI:

I have heard this argument before, the Trads love to throw St Pio into the mix, but a couple of things come up.

Saints are not infallible.

I was not aware of the book you mentioned but yes, all older priests where given an indult to keep saying the Trad Latin Mass due to their advanced age.

The Missal was promulgated in 1970 (someone here has said it was 1969 but that doesn’t really matter) and St Pio passed on in 1968. So the Missal was not in full use at the time of his death in any event. It may have been in experimental use but it was not mandated everywhere until it was promulgated.

St Pio died at the age of 81, he would not have been made to learn a new Mass and then be expected to remember it and say it correctly. The man could hardly stand as it was.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

smn:

Padre Pio died in 1968, while the Novus Ordo was being composed.

*Sacrosanctum Concilium *was promulgated in 1963. I was born in 1965, in Germany. It was that year that my mother says she remembers the Mass changing from Latin to German. So it seems there are many aspects of the Pauline Mass that had begun prior to 1968.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for proper promulgation of the Pauline Mass…

The *edition typica *of the Missale Romanum was promulgated as an Acta Apostolica Sedis, and was published as such, giving it the force of law. You must have an indult from the Bishop to celebrate a liturgy in the Latin Rite, other than with the current *editio typica or its vernacular translations approved by the Roman Pontiff. *There were always indults given, so one cannot rightly conclude that the Tridentine Mass was ever banned.

Paul VI stated:

“We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.” ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MISSAL.HTM

One ought to pay particular attention to the word, “notwithstanding.” Paul VI is saying that those things to the contrary, to include “apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions” no longer stand in contrast to the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI issued on April 3, 1969, which is to be “firm and effective now and in the future.” (unless an special permission or indult is given).

Moreover, the March 26, 1970, decree of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship states:

This Congregation for Divine Worship, at the mandate of the Pope, now promulgates and declares to be the *editio typica *this new edition of the Roman Missal prepared in accord with the decrees of Vatican Council II. … Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

---

Furthermore, the 27 March 1975 Decree, Second Editio Typica, from the Sacred congregation for Divine Worship states:

Pope Paul VI has approved this second edition of the Roman Missal by his authority and the Congregation for Divine Worship now issues it and declares it to be the editio typica. It will be the responsibility of the conferences of bishops to introduce into the respective vernacular editions the changes contained in this second edition of the Roman Missal.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Again, there’s that phrase again, which abrogates all universal law which is contrary to this decree.

 

[bear06]

ByzCath:

I have heard this argument before, the Trads love to throw St Pio into the mix, but a couple of things come up.

Saints are not infallible.

I was not aware of the book you mentioned but yes, all older priests where given an indult to keep saying the Trad Latin Mass due to their advanced age.

The Missal was promulgated in 1970 (someone here has said it was 1969 but that doesn’t really matter) and St Pio passed on in 1968. So the Missal was not in full use at the time of his death in any event. It may have been in experimental use but it was not mandated everywhere until it was promulgated.

St Pio died at the age of 81, he would not have been made to learn a new Mass and then be expected to remember it and say it correctly. The man could hardly stand as it was.

Here are also a few more quotes from Padre Pio from the Ruffin book:

“You did a wicked thing . . . We must respect the decrees of the Church. We must be silent and suffer.”

Please note that he didn’t say we had to like something, he basically is saying what Paster Aeternus said which is that we must submit. For some this may include suffering in silence!!!

Said to his sister regarding the liberal changes in her order:

“They are wrong and you are right, but still you must obey.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Another Acta Apostolica Sedis (act of the Apostolic See) of interest is the Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter Quattuor abhinc annos. 3 Oct. 1984: AAS 76 (1984) pp. 1088-1089.

It is this Act of the Apostolic See that allows the indult for the use of the 1962 edition of the Missale Romanum.

Quattuor abhinc annos states:

the Supreme Pontiff … grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:

• a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

b) **Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases. **
*
c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.

d) There must be **no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals. **e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application.

It is clear from this Acta Apostolica Sedis that the Pope does not in any way intend there to be a universal right for all priests to celebrate the Mass in accord with editions of the Missale Romanum prior to the current editio typica.

 

[Sean_O_L]

RSisco wrote:

What you need to realize is that the new mass did not come from the second Vatican Council. The council ended in 1965 and the new mass came out in 1969.

So! According to YOUR logic above:

Inasmuch as the Council if Trent ended 1563 and Quo Primum was promulgated in 1570 - then we can deduce that the so-called “Tridentine” Mass did not come out of Trent?

 

[RSiscoe]

Sean O L:

RSisco wrote:

So! According to YOUR logic above:

Inasmuch as the Council if Trent ended 1563 and Quo Primum was promulgated in 1570 - then we can deduce that the so-called “Tridentine” Mass did not come out of Trent?

Of course the “Tridentine” Mass did NOT come from Trent. That mass had existed for about a thousand years. It is not really the “Trindentine” Mass. It is the Roman Mass. Don’t let anyone convince you that the Mass of Pope Pius V was a new creation. It was not.

Dave,

Regarding the promulgation of the new Mass. You need to read what was written in Latin. The english gives a force that is not in the original.

and yes, your quote from Vatican II only confirms the ambiguity. In one sentence we are told that the Latin is to be retained; then in another place we are told that the vernacular is to be used and that its “limits may be extended”. The liberals (wolves) have used these ambiguities to their advantage.

Question: Is it compatible for Vatican II to say that latin is to be maintained in the administration of the sacraments, then for latin to be totally eliminated from the administration of the sacraments on the authority of Vatican II? Do you see any contradiction there?

This is just one example of the contradictions that have come from that council. I believe a future Pope will declare Vatican II to have been the second “rober council”, but that is just my opinion. For now I have to try and reconcile its poorly worded ambuguous documents with the Catholic faith. I have to admit, sometimes that is difficult to do. It sometimes takes real mental gymnastic.

 

[MrS]

RSiscoe:

Dave,

and yes, your quote from Vatican II only confirms the ambiguity. In one sentence we are told that the Latin is to be retained; then in another place we are told that the vernacular is to be used and that its “limits may be extended”. The liberals (wolves) have used these ambiguities to their advantage.

Question: Is it compatible for Vatican II to say that latin is to be maintained in the administration of the sacraments, then for latin to be totally eliminated from the administration of the sacraments on the authority of Vatican II? Do you see any contradiction there?

This is just one example of the contradictions that have come from that council. I believe a future Pope will declare Vatican II to have been the second “rober council”, but that is just my opinion. For now I have to try and reconcile its poorly worded ambuguous documents with the Catholic faith. I have to admit, sometimes that is difficult to do. It sometimes takes real mental gymnastic.

I don’t see in these posts this comment, so here it is:

The changes from the TLM to the NO are many. But only the Latin-to-English seems to be the topic in this country. The true abuses that resulted from the ambiguities of Vat II are not so much in the language change, but in the prayer changes. A desire to return to the TLM by many is not based on the Latin, but on the prayers of the Mass. If one were to compare the prayers, and the critical points of theology that arise with those changes, one could not help but desire a return to the prayers of the TLM,

IMO this “return” would not only displease our separated brethren, but would upset many Catholics who like the NO. I think both groups find it easier… the old ways are too difficult for them. And they might walk away… So a change “back” needs to be accompanied by good instructions. Sadly, I don’t think many of the older priests are interested (read capable) in supporting this effort, They plod along and occasionally celebrate a “Latin” Mass… in the new theology.