Was Tridentine Mass "Forbidden"

[ConservativeOne]

I’ve read the books years ago, and I’m tired. I’m just forgetting. But I just read a post that has me wondering. A “Novus Ordo” friend (someone who regularly attends NO) - has told me time and again that the Tridentine Mass was never “forbidden”. To my knowledge, it could not be - it was set to be “in perpetuity”.

But I think the post I just read was that the Moto Proprio will say the Tridentine Mass CANNOT BE forbidden…Either, I’m tired or reading it wrong or it was the poster’s words.
I thought the Tridentine Mass could NEVER be forbidden - it was “in perpetuity” - right? Technically, it wasn’t forbidden but, shall we say, replaced by the Novus Ordo. So, why say it can’t be forbidden - if it never was?
Exhausted.

 

[Corki]

Could it be that, although the Tridentine Mass was not forbidden by the Church, many Bishops forbade (and some still do) the Mass from being said in their dioceses?

 

[ConservativeOne]

Could it be that, although the Tridentine Mass was not forbidden by the Church, many Bishops forbade (and some still do) the Mass from being said in their dioceses?

Could very well be what you suggest…(I was thinking same.)

 

[Madaglan]

The SC on Divine Worship, in its notification Instructione de Constitutione on the Roman Missal (issued 1971), clearly stated that only the newer form of the Mass would be allowed for celebrations, even those that use Latin. Furthermore, the notification did mention that continued use of the Missale Romanum of the 1962 edition would be allowed, but only with the agreement of the local bishop, and only in cases in which the celebration were private, i.e. with no congregation. This allowance was especially intended for elderly priests who could not learn the new form of the Mass.

So yes, the Tridentine Latin Mass was more or less forbidden, even if not officially abrogated.

 

[TheDoctor]

I don’t believe there is any documentation that the EF was ever forbidden. I think that when the OF was approved it was like that new toy you get for Christmas and you forget about the old one.

Unless I am mistaken, no Pope has the right to set up any liturgy “in perpetuity” (since how we celebrate is a discipline not a dogma). I believe the language in the MP was that individual Bishops cannot forbid the celebration of the EF in their jurisdictions as long as the conditions of the MP are complied with.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The Tridentine Mass was treated as if it had been forbidden, depite the fact that the Mass of Bl. John XXIII was never abrogated. The Mass was restricted, and those who wished to celebrate the Tridentine Mass were prevented from doing so in many cases. Many Bishops tried and succeeded in preventing the Tridentine Mass from being celebrated in their dioceses. Many within the Church behaved as if the old Mass had been revoked, and claimed that it’s celebration was divisive. Those who prefered the ancient Roman Mass were treated like second-class citizens and lepers. Many Catholics automatically labelled you a schismatic if you attended the Tridentine Mass. The Tridentine Mass was seen as something to be done away with. It reminded liberal Catholics of a time when dissenters were silenced, and orthodoxy was championed.

 

[una_fides]

I don’t believe there is any documentation that the EF was ever forbidden. I think that when the OF was approved it was like that new toy you get for Christmas and you forget about the old one.

Unless I am mistaken, no Pope has the right to set up any liturgy “in perpetuity” (since how we celebrate is a discipline not a dogma). I believe the language in the MP was that individual Bishops cannot forbid the celebration of the EF in their jurisdictions as long as the conditions of the MP are complied with.

Read this short encyclical by Pope St. Pius V: dailycatholic.org/quoprimu.htm

Here’s an important excerpt:
Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than two hundred years.
…
Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

 

[pennypen]

No, but some priests see it as a problem.
People prefer the Mass in English cuz
it is so hard to understand the Latin. If
any priest said it was forbidden, he was
jiving ya! It’s harder to say for sure, and
like the high latin mass ya gotta sing much
of it.

 

[Timothysis]

Read this short encyclical by Pope St. Pius V: dailycatholic.org/quoprimu.htm

Here’s an important excerpt:
Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than two hundred years.
…
Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

You are misinterpreting something from the 16th century with a 21st century mentality written in the language of the times.

Pope Benedict has said that the Tridentine Mass was (paraphrased) “never prohibited,” but as others have noted, the conditions were such that it was practically, if not prohibited, suppressed. Thankfully, things are in such a way that we will probably (hopefully) see a much wider use of the 1962 missal which will hopefully create a much more aware and knowledgeable Catholic consciousness in the world.

Pope Pius V’s Quo Primum, which promulgated the Tridentine Mass in 1570, pertains to that particular missal, not creating a liturgy that is to exist “in perpetuity,” for Quo Primum allowed other liturgies which had been established more than 200 years earlier to continue to be celebrated. We must also keep in mind that the typical language of the 16th century was written in a very wide, sweeping style that is untypical for documents from more recent times. Thus, some in today’s world will apply a 21st century understanding to something from over 400 years ago and arrive at a greatly misdirected conclusion.

Lastly, one pope cannot bind a future pope. If this were so, what need would there be of a papacy?

 

[jackinbox]

The SC on Divine Worship, in its notification Instructione de Constitutione on the Roman Missal (issued 1971), clearly stated that only the newer form of the Mass would be allowed for celebrations, even those that use Latin. Furthermore, the notification did mention that continued use of the Missale Romanum of the 1962 edition would be allowed, but only with the agreement of the local bishop, and only in cases in which the celebration were private, i.e. with no congregation. This allowance was especially intended for elderly priests who could not learn the new form of the Mass.

So yes, the Tridentine Latin Mass was more or less forbidden, even if not officially abrogated.

So, in say 1990 it was not possible to attend a Tridentine Mass (outside of SSPX)? I had thought they were hard to find but still around in a few places.

 

[LilyM]

So, in say 1990 it was not possible to attend a Tridentine Mass (outside of SSPX)? I had thought they were hard to find but still around in a few places.

Wrong. In 1984 the CDW put out a document,* Quattuor Abhinc Annos*, calling for wider use of the Tridentine Mass. A sentiment echoed by JP2 in the 1988 Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei where he stated that

“respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962”

So there were already moves afoot well before the 1990s to make it possible to attend TLMs outside of those offered by the SSPX. And that very same year (1988), for example, the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP) was started up for precisely that purpose. And in 1990 the other main TLM group in communion with Rome, the ICKSP (Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest) was formed.

 

[mitch2007]

This is what confuses me immensely.

I think prior to the issue of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in 2007, the “official party line” was that the Tridentine Mass had, indeed, been suppressed. Certainly, it was said to be the case that one could only licitly offer this Mass, where an Indult had been granted. As far as I know, prior to 1984 (Quattor Abhinc Annos), only elderly, retired priests could get permission to use this Mass - and then only for Masses without the people. In England and Wales there was a similar Indult. Then from 1984, there was the permission enabling the Ordinary to authorise, where he saw the need, celebrations of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal. This was very much an indult - a permission, or exception to the law. The use of the 1970 Missal was normative and compulsory otherwise. Then come 1986, and the commission of Cardinals studying the legal status of this Mass - they came to the conclusion that the old rite had never been abrograted by Paul VI, and that no bishop could prohibit a priest from using this rite. However, the Commission’s recommendations and conclusions were never implemented. In 1988, in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, attachment to the Tridentine rite was recognised as a legitimate aspiration, and bishops urged to be generous in authorising this Mass.

Now my point is this: prior to 2007, whatever the opinions and arguments of traditionalists, or recommendations of cardinals in 1986, the Tridentine Mass was officially regarded as generally abolished, or permissible only when an Indult was granted or applied. It could not simply be said at will, even privately as far as I know.

Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum effectively endorses what (non-extremist) traditionalists have for years argued concerning the legal status of the Tridentine Mass: it was never abrogated, and was thus always permissible.

Does anyone see the contradiction? Please do not misunderstand me; I rejoice at the liberation of this Mass. However, this contradicts what was previously said. I think even Paul VI himself said that the use of the newer Missal was certainly not left to the free choice of the priests and faithful. It seems he viewed the old rite as legally suppressed.

How does one resolve this apparent contradiction?

Also, what of all those priests who clung to, or reverted to the old rite - we see that what they did was permissible - and were punished, even suspended for that! I am not speaking of priests censured for some other act (justly or unjustly), but specifically for saying the old rite. Priests turned out of parishes for doing something they regarded as legal - rightly so as we now know - but then officially regarded (wrongly) as illicit. When will they receive apologies? There was massive injustice against such priests. I personally know at least two such priests, whose trouble with their dioceses stemmed not from any real crime on their part, but purely from them opting to use the old rite, in days when this was seen as illicit. Now they are proven right that the Mass was always permissible, what happens to their censures? I think many bishops owe apologies to such priests!

God bless.

 

[una_fides]

You are misinterpreting something from the 16th century with a 21st century mentality written in the language of the times.

Pope Benedict has said that the Tridentine Mass was (paraphrased) “never prohibited,” but as others have noted, the conditions were such that it was practically, if not prohibited, suppressed. Thankfully, things are in such a way that we will probably (hopefully) see a much wider use of the 1962 missal which will hopefully create a much more aware and knowledgeable Catholic consciousness in the world.

Pope Pius V’s Quo Primum, which promulgated the Tridentine Mass in 1570, pertains to that particular missal, not creating a liturgy that is to exist “in perpetuity,” for Quo Primum allowed other liturgies which had been established more than 200 years earlier to continue to be celebrated. We must also keep in mind that the typical language of the 16th century was written in a very wide, sweeping style that is untypical for documents from more recent times. Thus, some in today’s world will apply a 21st century understanding to something from over 400 years ago and arrive at a greatly misdirected conclusion.

Lastly, one pope cannot bind a future pope. If this were so, what need would there be of a papacy?

How can you possibly claim I am misinterpreting anything when I didn’t even provide my interpretation? All I did was post the document and underline some key parts. You are arguing against an interpretation that I did not provide.

 

[TheDoctor]

How can you possibly claim I am misinterpreting anything when I didn’t even provide my interpretation? All I did was post the document and underline some key parts. You are arguing against an interpretation that I did not provide.

I was going to reply but Tim beat me to it. If you use the search function, you will see a number of threads where this issue has been debated back and forth and it always, always boils down to how the underlined part of your post is interpreted and applied, so that is probably where Tim is coming from.

Bottom line, your underlined point does not mean the at the EF cannot be amended or changed (it has been many times since 1570) or that a future Pope could not outright forbid it’s use (God forbid!).

 

[kermitz06]

Could it be that, although the Tridentine Mass was not forbidden by the Church, many Bishops forbade (and some still do) the Mass from being said in their dioceses?

This was true in my old diocese, it ending up driving tons of people to SSPX.

God Bless!

 

[jackinbox]

Wrong. In 1984 the CDW put out a document,* Quattuor Abhinc Annos*, calling for wider use of the Tridentine Mass. A sentiment echoed by JP2 in the 1988 Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei where he stated that

“respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962”

So there were already moves afoot well before the 1990s to make it possible to attend TLMs outside of those offered by the SSPX. And that very same year (1988), for example, the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP) was started up for precisely that purpose. And in 1990 the other main TLM group in communion with Rome, the ICKSP (Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest) was formed.

OK. The part that confused me was the part about “in private with no congregation”. I had assumed that meant that prior to 2007 no public TLM would be allowed.

So am I correct in saying that certain Parishes received permission for the Tridentine Mass with congregation prior to 2007?

 

[ProVobis]

We must also keep in mind that the typical language of the 16th century was written in a very wide, sweeping style that is untypical for documents from more recent times. Thus, some in today’s world will apply a 21st century understanding to something from over 400 years ago and arrive at a greatly misdirected conclusion.

I have a big problem with this thinking. Presuming this document was written in Latin, a dead language, the Latin meaning should be unchanged between then and now, no? And also, since the TLM is basically unchanged since Quo Primum, are we going to give the same “wide, sweeping” leeway in the theology behind the Mass? I think not.

 

[malphono]

OK. The part that confused me was the part about “in private with no congregation”. I had assumed that meant that prior to 2007 no public TLM would be allowed.

So am I correct in saying that certain Parishes received permission for the Tridentine Mass with congregation prior to 2007?

You are referring to what is called the “indult” which was mentioned in prior posts:

mitch2007:

In 1988, in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, attachment to the Tridentine rite was recognised as a legitimate aspiration, and bishops urged to be generous in authorising this Mass.

and
LIilyM:

…1988 Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei where he stated that “respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962”

In Summorum Pontificum, PP Penedict XVI released the bonds, and the silly “indult” was done away with.

For all intents and purposes, prior to the “indult” the Missal of 1962 has been suppressed. And even during it, since the “wide and generous application” portion was frequently ignored, it was nearly impossible to find. Thankfully, neither is any longer the case: the EF is now more-or-less free.

I must say that [post=4926050]mitch2007[/post] put it all rather well.

 

[mrearly2]

Could it be that, although the Tridentine Mass was not forbidden by the Church, many Bishops forbade (and some still do) the Mass from being said in their dioceses?

Yes, it’s true that the (old Latin) Mass was never abrogated, but when the Masonic new mass was foisted upon us, most bishops went to great lengths to prevent their priests from offering the Mass. It turns out, though, that many bishops were/are perverts and/or satanists, so it’s no wonder that they hate(d) the Mass.

 

[DavidPalm]

Also, what of all those priests who clung to, or reverted to the old rite - we see that what they did was permissible - and were punished, even suspended for that! I am not speaking of priests censured for some other act (justly or unjustly), but specifically for saying the old rite. Priests turned out of parishes for doing something they regarded as legal - rightly so as we now know - but then officially regarded (wrongly) as illicit. When will they receive apologies? There was massive injustice against such priests. I personally know at least two such priests, whose trouble with their dioceses stemmed not from any real crime on their part, but purely from them opting to use the old rite, in days when this was seen as illicit. Now they are proven right that the Mass was always permissible, what happens to their censures? I think many bishops owe apologies to such priests!

Amen, brother. In answer to your question about what we do with this, I think you’ve got it right. You call it for what it is, a grave injustice that came down from “on high” as it were. It doesn’t have to be that big a deal as long as we remember what we repeatedly tell non-Catholics, that the Popes are not impeccable. Historically certain Popes have been guilty of some pretty grave errors of judgment. It’s just harder to swallow for those who have gotten into the habit of ascribing almost godlike qualities to certain occupant(s) of the Chair of Peter.

This is just one of many reasons why some of us don’t think that everything that passes for “great” was really so “great”.

Prior to the motu proprio I and other “rad trads” were jeered at for asserting that the “indult” was actually a legal fiction, since it ostensibly required “permission” to do that which required no permission. I was entirely unsuccessful some time ago in getting a fairly popular apologist to even begin to see that any responsibility for this confusion resided in Rome. Strange.