Who can reconcile this?

[cam100]

The “problem” may not have been that the Holy See rejected the TLM, but rather that it was foreseen that there might be a refusal among the faithful to admit that the Pope, in collegial consultation with the College of Cardinals, had full authority to institute the NO and the other reforms of Vatican II. On this account, access to TLM may have been restricted as a discipline and as a precaution against fracture over the issue. I don’t mean “discipline” in the sense of a punishment, but in the sense of the Church using the restriction of one liturgical norm as a means to reiterate of the authority of the Church to have introduced the other, lest refusal to use the NO be used to deny Rome’s ultimate authority in the matter of defining legitimate liturgies for the Church, and as a precaution against the temptation towards the formation of factions over the question.

This would imply that requiring permission to use the TLM was not any reflection on the TLM itself, but rather was imposed as a discipline because it was foreseen how many would tempted into disobedience by refusing to recognizing the NO. Once the NO was recognized by all but a few, the “problem” was solved.

For instance, ordination of married men to the priesthood has never been banned, but does require permission by the Holy See, because the Holy See has, by its full authority, imposed the discipline of celibacy, because of the value inherent in a celibate priesthood. Would the Holy See not have to issue an indult if that discipline were to be lifted?

Having written all this, I think what is needed is a canon lawyer, who understands what the words mean and can explain the matter in real terms, or a Church historian, who knows the whens and whys around this issue.

I think this is a pretty good assessment of the situation. Although the TLM was never abrogated, there were restrictions on its use until Summorum Pontificum. Note that in the quote below, Pope Benedict doesn’t quite say that the TLM was always permitted, but he qualifies it with the words “in principle”.

Summorum Pontificum: “As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted”.

 

[stmaria]

Father Annibale Bugnini was most likely responsible for the belief that the TLM had been abrogated. He writes about it in his book Reform of the Liturgy
Pg 299 “ On August 31 , 1973, Monsignor Sustar…insisted on a statement being issued as to whether the Mass of Pius V was unconditionally prohibited. After a new study of the question, it was decided that a response would be opportune…. On October 17, 1973, the secretary of the Congregation {Annibale Bugnini} explained matters to Monsignor Sustar as follows: 1. The **“Missal of Pius V” was definitely abrogated by the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum.’ **

 

[Sure]

Pax,

Good thread.

Could it be that although the 1962 Missal was never abrogated there were, in place, disciplinary measures that restricted it’s use. For instance, previous to 9/14/06 a priest could say the 1962missal but only after he had secured a celebret from the Ecclesia Dei Commission. After 9/14/06, the celebret for the 1962 missal was no longer necessary, as now the priest’s celebret for the roman rite was sufficient. It seems that without abrogating anything a Pope can implement various disciplinary measures which he deems necessary.

For instance (yet completely unlikely), tomorrow he could declare that any priest who would like to say the missal of 1962 must first secure a celebret from the ED commission. Such an action, would be possible, even though, at the same time, the 1962 missal is still not abrogated.

Another example, the Pope could also declare that any ordinary who wants to ordain a priest must secure an (additional) written permission from Rome. This would not mean that the rite of ordination has been abrogated, but merely that it now carries an additional disciplinary measure, that before, was not in existence.

Does that make sense?

 

[EasterJoy]

What I don’t understand is why wasn’t the actual suggestions of Vatican II implemented? Why didn’t Pope Paul VI simply translate portions of the Ancient Liturgy of the Roman Church into the vernacular? How in the world did an entirely ‘new’ Liturgy get promulgated and the ‘old’ Liturgy get shelved? I still don’t understand how that happened? Did the Church traditions just implode?

Maybe it came in how different people define “ancient”. For in the first centuries of the Church, the faithful would regularly take the Eucharist to their homes. There was no sense that only the priest could touch the Blessed Sacrament. That came as a later discipline, because there were abuses. What was instituted under Paul VI was still a discipline, but a less strict discipline. Probably it was felt that the stricter discipline introduced the undesireable sentiment that Jesus Christ’s is an unapproachable divinity.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pax,

Good thread.

Could it be that although the 1962 Missal was never abrogated there were, in place, disciplinary measures that restricted it’s use. For instance, previous to 9/14/06 a priest could say the 1962missal but only after he had secured a celebret from the Ecclesia Dei Commission. After 9/14/06, the celebret for the 1962 missal was no longer necessary, as now the priest’s celebret for the roman rite was sufficient. It seems that without abrogating anything a Pope can implement various disciplinary measures which he deems necessary.

Indeed he can… but he didn’t. Neither the Pope, not any ecclesial department in Rome, ever issued any document limiting the use of the Traditional Mass. No disciplinary measures were implemented.

All that happened, was that the impression was given that the old Mass has been abrogated (forbidden). This was both implied and specifically stated (as the quote stmaria provided shows). To put it simply, just about everyone (except for the Traditionalists) believed that the old Mass had been abrogated when the new was issued. That was at least the impression that was given. Therefore, there was no reason to issue a disciplinary measure to limit it, since, as they all pretended, it was abrogated.

 

[Sure]

Indeed he can… but he didn’t. Neither the Pope, not any ecclesial department in Rome, ever issued any document limiting the use of the Traditional Mass. No disciplinary measures were implemented.

All that happened, was that the impression was given that the old Mass has been abrogated (forbidden). This was both implied and specifically stated (as the quote stmaria provided shows). To put it simply, just about everyone (except for the Traditionalists) believed that the old Mass had been abrogated when the new was issued. That was at least the impression that was given. Therefore, there was no reason to issue a disciplinary measure to limit it, since, as they all pretended, it was abrogated.

Well, there were disciplinary measures (requiring a 2nd celebret) put in place in 1988. I don’t know about before.

Are there any documents indicating restrictions or permissions before that? It would be interesting to see.

 

[dyspepsic]

I don’t understand the question. The 1970 (Novus Ordo) Missal still exists in total Latin version.

I needed a logical, chronilogical answer. You only confused me further.

What happened to the Latin Mass that was in existence, let’s say, in 1945? Where is that?

 

[Sure]

I needed a logical, chronilogical answer. You only confused me further.

What happened to the Latin Mass that was in existence, let’s say, in 1945? Where is that?

I believe that usually the new missal would also declare the previous missal abrogated and replaced by the new missal. This is probably what led many to assume that the missal of 1970 (or 1969) had abrogated the missal of 1965…separate question: did the missal of 1965 abrogate the missal of 1962? Did the missal of 1962 abrogate the missal of 1955 (or was it 1958?).

 

[ProVobis]

I believe that usually the new missal would also declare the previous missal abrogated and replaced by the new missal. This is probably what led many to assume that the missal of 1970 (or 1969) had abrogated the missal of 1965…separate question: did the missal of 1965 abrogate the missal of 1962? Did the missal of 1962 abrogate the missal of 1955 (or was it 1958?).

Valid point. It seems that effectively Pope Benedict abrogated all missals except the Missals of 1962 and 1970 (or whatever the most current Latin/vernacular edition is). In the Latin Rite, of course.

By the way, I think you meant 9/14/07, not 9/14/06, in a previous post.

 

[ProVobis]

Indeed he can… but he didn’t. Neither the Pope, not any ecclesial department in Rome, ever issued any document limiting the use of the Traditional Mass. No disciplinary measures were implemented.

All that happened, was that the impression was given that the old Mass has been abrogated (forbidden). This was both implied and specifically stated (as the quote stmaria provided shows). To put it simply, just about everyone (except for the Traditionalists) believed that the old Mass had been abrogated when the new was issued. That was at least the impression that was given. Therefore, there was no reason to issue a disciplinary measure to limit it, since, as they all pretended, it was abrogated.

Don’t forget, Pope Paul VI did allow the Old Mass to be said after 1969 in places like England (Agatha Christie Indult). He also allowed certain elder priests to continue saying the Old Rite. However, I’m not sure these Indults specifically addressed the 1962 Missal.

 

[elt1956]

Valid point. It seems that effectively Pope Benedict abrogated all missals except the Missals of 1962 and 1970 (or whatever the most current Latin/vernacular edition is). In the Latin Rite, of course.

By the way, I think you meant 9/14/07, not 9/14/06, in a previous post.

Are you saying I can no longer use my beautiful rosewood covered missle from Jerusalem which received its imprimatur in 1960 at TLM? Well, I never!! Since I would have to pay $65.00 for a new one, I will use my old one thank you very much. I may embarass myself by standing when I should be sitting, but I can take it. Peace

 

[holdencaulfield]

Are you saying I can no longer use my beautiful rosewood covered missle from Jerusalem which received its imprimatur in 1960 at TLM? Well, I never!! Since I would have to pay $65.00 for a new one, I will use my old one thank you very much. I may embarass myself by standing when I should be sitting, but I can take it. Peace

Who cares really though. Priests should respect peoples want to conform to TLM regulations.

 

[elt1956]

Who cares really though. Priests should respect peoples want to conform to TLM regulations.

Yes, there is always a basic truth to adhere to rather than appearances. Peace

 

[kleary]

Who can reconcile this contradiction?

The fact that Popes can and do make mistakes. This is not a contradiction of our faith or the authenticity of the Papacy.

Ken

 

[ProVobis]

Are you saying I can no longer use my beautiful rosewood covered missle from Jerusalem which received its imprimatur in 1960 at TLM? Well, I never!! Since I would have to pay $65.00 for a new one, I will use my old one thank you very much. I may embarass myself by standing when I should be sitting, but I can take it. Peace

You can use whatever missal or handout or prayerbook you want, including web printouts to take with you to Mass. It is the priest that says the Mass that uses a specific Missal. He has no choice of which to use.

 

[dyspepsic]

Are you saying I can no longer use my beautiful rosewood covered missle from Jerusalem which received its imprimatur in 1960 at TLM? Well, I never!! Since I would have to pay $65.00 for a new one, I will use my old one thank you very much. I may embarass myself by standing when I should be sitting, but I can take it. Peace

Sorry for your trouble.

You know what? You can sell it on EBay for over $100, and with the money you make, buy another up-to-date missal.

BTW, don’t you realize that all books, at least those worthwhile, go through various editions and redactions. It is nothing new. Not just re-printings, but new editions.

So, sell your book, make a profit and get yourself a new missal.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Are you saying I can no longer use my beautiful rosewood covered missle from Jerusalem which received its imprimatur in 1960 at TLM? Well, I never!! Since I would have to pay $65.00 for a new one, I will use my old one thank you very much. I may embarass myself by standing when I should be sitting, but I can take it. Peace

You can still use it, you just can’t say Mass with it if you are a Priest.

 

[dyspepsic]

You can still use it, you just can’t say Mass with it if you are a Priest.

BTW, I have never heard a missal with a wooden cover.

Even missals for altar use have hardened cardboard covers. Wood? Let’s get serious.

You sure you’re not making it up so you can whine about the change in the Mass? Sounds like whining to me.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I think it might be taken in notice, that Pope John Paul II never made the TLM illegal. Even if he did, it could not be Infallible because it contradicts previous Tradition (Constant Magisterium).

 

[dyspepsic]

I think it might be taken in notice, that Pope John Paul II never made the TLM illegal. Even if he did, it could not be Infallible because it contradicts previous Tradition (Constant Magisterium).

What does faith and morals have to do with the liturgy? Rubrics is not the subjecty matter of infallibility or of the ‘constant magisterium’,