Rorate Caeli

Complete dossier on Summorum Pontificum


The news agency of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (Propaganda Fide), Fides, provides a complete historical-documentary dossier (DOC) on the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, edited by Don Nicola Bux and Don Salvatore Vitiello.

Summary:

1. THE ANTECEDENTS

  • Sacrosanctum Concilium
  • The Constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI (1969)
  • The Indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos of Pope John Paul II (1984)
  • The Commissio Cardinalitia of 1986
  • The Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of Pope John Paul II (1988)
  • Cardinal Medina on the Third Editio Typica of the Missal of Paul VI (2002)
  • Bibliography by Uwe Michael lang

2. THE ‘RENOVATIO’ OF THE ROMAN MISSAL

34 comments:

Mark said...

I have only skimmed over the beginning of it, but it is looking good - thank you!

Anonymous said...

The assertion by the authors of this "Dossier" that Sacrosanctum Concilium, in paragraph 49 alludes to 2 rites of the Mass, and that this is the prelude to Summorum Pontificum, is exceedingly tendentions.

Everyone knows that Summorum Pontificum responds to the failure of liturgical reforms, not to the express will of the Council to have 2 forms!

This Dossier attempts to place the MP in a different historical context.

For the H. F. Benedict XVI, as can be seen from the very first paragraph, the urgent necessity is to maintain unity with Apostolic And Ecclesiastical Tradition, BY ALL LOCAL CHURCHES. The MP therefore discerns (discernit) that priests have always had the right to the Ancient Liturgy of the Roman Church, which remains in force NOT ONLY FOR PRIVATE MASSES BUT FOR PUBLIC ONES.

No one before has every claimed that the NO was intended only for public masses! It is where there would be no reason behind the MP commencing with speaking about private masses!

Oh the spin, those who oppose the MP, are putting on it!

Like those who have for 40 years denies that Quo Primum is in force!

There is a problem also in the Dossier

It reads in the first section on Paul VI Apostolic Constitution: "First, to Quo Primum we can, in any case, apply can. 21 CIC: “In dubio revocatio legis praexistentis non praesumitur, sed leges posteriores ad priores trahendae sunt et his, quantum fieri potest, conciliandae”. For all practical purposes this means that if the Old Mass has lost its privileged position, it nevertheless continues to exist and the faithful have a right to it."

However the Latin just quoted says: "In doubt the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws are to be drawn to former ones and conciliated with them, as much as can be done."

Hence their conclusion is akward.

The correct conclusion is that Quo Primum remains in force, and that Paul VI's Apostolic Consitution only refers to the New Missal and its publication.

It seems therefore that their article might have been badly written or translated, because in English they should have written, as an observation to this Latin princple:

"For all practical purposes this means that if the Old Mass had lost its privileged position, it would nevertheless continue to exist and the faithful would have a right to it.



Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

Anonymous said...

For over 35 years bishops and priests have been lying about the "suppression" of the TLM. Now it takes the Holy Father himself to bring out the truth which is that, in fact, bishops and priests who have foisted this on the Catholic faithful just made up a story to somehow justify their refusal to do what they were obligated to do in the first place. Why is this important? It is important in the context of the recent horrendous pedophilia scandals throughout the Church. Over and over again the faithful and others are given the TRUE story that their prelates are liars. Is this just bad press? I don't think so. I think a huge number of them are liars and careerists. Things are so bad that bishops and priests should be calling for public acts of reparation on the part of all of the faithful for the conversion of (many of) the hierarchy who are called to shepherd them on the way to heaven. This outcry is never heard. Priests are never seen to weep at the altar for all the outrages heaped upon Our Savior, His Mother and Holy Church. If this is not that time of the Great Apostasy, I can't imagine how the "real thing" could be any worse. God have mercy upon us. Please.

Jordan Potter said...

The assertion by the authors of this "Dossier" that Sacrosanctum Concilium, in paragraph 49 alludes to 2 rites of the Mass, and that this is the prelude to Summorum Pontificum, is exceedingly tendentious.

They didn't say "two rites of the Mass," they said "two FORMS of the RITE of Mass." Please re-read what they said.

It seems therefore that their article might have been badly written or translated, because in English they should have written, as an observation to this Latin princple:

"For all practical purposes this means that if the Old Mass had lost its privileged position, it would nevertheless continue to exist and the faithful would have a right to it."

Actually I prefer the translation in the Dossier, because it affirms strongly that the Old Mass DOES continue to exist and the faithful DO have a right to it, whereas your proposed rendering would merely suggest that as a conditional possibility.

Anonymous said...

Jordan Potter,

I was refering to the 2, not to their term "form", because obviously the NO and the TLM are not two forms of the same rite. The argument about the "2" is the central one. Let's not divert our attention from that.

As for my proposed restoration of the the subjunctive contrary to fact construction, perhaps you have not noticed that the English sentence in question, in the Dossier, allows the possibility that the Ancient Missal has been abolished, but the contrary to fact construction which I propose, does not, and that this is more in accord with the Latin principle, which they cite in the dossier.

That's what's more important.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

Anonymous said...

RE: the Question of the use of the terms "Rite", "rite", "form", and "usage".

I recommend the old Catholic Encyclopedia, at newadvent.org, in its article on "Rite"; also in its articleon the "Gallican Rite" it says:

" Pope Adrian I between 784 and 791 sent to Charlemagne at his own request a copy of what was considered to be the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, but which certainly represented the Roman use of the end of the eighth century. This book, which was far from complete, was edited and supplemented by the addition of a large amount of matter derived from the Gallican books and from the Roman book known as the Gelasian Sacramentary, which had been gradually supplanting the Gallican. It is probable that the editor was Charlemagne's principal liturgical advisor, the Englishman Alcuin. Copies were distributed throughout Charlemagne's empire, and this "composite liturgy", as Mgr Duchesne says, "from its source in the Imperial chapel spread throughout all the churches of the Frankish Empire and at length, finding its way to Rome gradually supplanted there the ancient use". More than half a century later, when Charles the Bald wished to see what the ancient Gallican Rite had been like, it was necessary to import Spanish priests to celebrate it in his presence."

So we can se that a Missal created by collecting various elements of other missals, in the same language, can be and is, in the case of the Gallican Rite, called a "Rite". And yet the Gallican Rite is not another form of the Roman Rite. Though in the sense of "rite" (any ritual), obviously the Gallican and Roman are two forms of latin liturgy.

But just as the NO in English and in French are also 2 forms of the same Rite, in this sense of terms, the TLM and the NO are NOT 2 forms of the same Rite.

B16 in his MP calls them two forms or uses of the same Rite, but he nowhere imposes his novel use of terms upon the Church; he just establishes these terms as labels for peace keeping purposes.

There is going to be much confusion over this, because there is so much misunderstanding of the nature of the Magisterium. The MP is a legal document; in that it imposes nothing to be accepted by divine and catholic faith, or with a religious assent of mind as to be held with any particular note of teaching authority, its usage of terms obliges nothing; but the signification of those terms does.

Thus whether the Pope calls one ordinary or another extraordinary, one a usage or rite, another a form or missal, does not change the force and import of his law, which is clearly disciplinary.

humboldt said...

Reading the document one comes to really grasp the extent of the wickedness of those who are called to rule over the Church.

The parragraph that caught more my attetion is the one where it reminds that Bugnini seeked an official declaration of abolisment of the Traditional Liturgy. This Bugnini must be in hell, because he really hated the Traditional Liturgy.

It is clear that all of these changes were the result of an ideology that seeked to destroy the Church. And those who took over this were not men of Christ but of the Devil.

These were bad people, and they continue to exist in the clergy. Bad people full of hate towards religion.

By the way the so called dossier ends with another devilish mark:

¡The Indult was a call for tolerance, the Motu Propio amplified it and hopefull, implemented it more fully!

So it remains to be seen if these Anti-Christs are checked or not.

¡Only Scripture Saves!

New Catholic said...

"Only Scripture Saves"?

Humboldt, you must seek the advice and counsel of a good priest as soon as possible.

Anonymous said...

Humboldt, you must seek the advice and counsel of a good priest as soon as possible.

Good luck with that.

alsaticus said...

dear humbold,

Annibale or better ani Male (evil) Bugnini is indeed in hell or in a very long Purgatory.
But his disciples are ...everywhere in the Church : the problem is not Annibale anymore but the litnik network, the litnik teachers, the litnik teachings, the litnik lay teams, the litnik infested minds of Joe and Jane Pew.

Jordan Potter said...

I was refering to the 2, not to their term "form", because obviously the NO and the TLM are not two forms of the same rite. The argument about the "2" is the central one. Let's not divert our attention from that.

Under Church law, the Pauline Missla and the Johannine Missal are indeed two forms of the same rite. If what you are saying is true, then Latin Rite priests have no right to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal except by special indult. That is the state of affairs that we'd been suffering under prior to 7 July 2007. But the Supreme Legislator of the Church has made clear that no special indult is needed for a Latin Rite priest to celebrate the Johannine Mass, either privately or publicly, because the law of the Church is that the Tridentine Mass and the Pauline Mass are two forms of the same rite. Your assertion that they are two separate rites would have the practical effect of depriving most of the faithful of the treasures that they might enjoy through licit Tridentine Masses.

Anonymous said...

Uh!?

I'm butting it, but I don't follow you, Jordan, please explain.

Bugnolo is saying that the former missale is said in virtue of Quo Primum, and that the New is said in virtue of Paul IV's Apostolic constitution.

What are you trying to say?

humboldt said...

LOL, :)

"Humboldt, you must seek the advice and counsel of a good priest as soon as possible.

Good luck with that."

Although they are not very common (good priests), there still are good priests, but I do not know if I am able to bear the transaction cost to find him.

And instead of him, a holy nun will do like Sr. Margherita Marchione. ;)

Jordan Potter said...

What are you trying to say?

Under Church law, priests of the Roman Rite celebrate the liturgy of the Roman Rite. They may celebrate the liturgies of other rites if they obtain lawful permission to do so. Under Church law, the Mass of the Roman Rite is the Pauline Missal. Pope Benedict XVI has now clarified that the Johannine Missal of 1962 was never legally abrogated, and therefore remains a form of the Roman Rite, which means any Latin Rite priest may celebrate it without having to obtain special permission to do so.

But if the 1962 Missal and the 1969 Missal (well, it's the 2002 Missal now, isn't it?) are not the same rite, then it follows that, under the law of the Church, Latin Rite priests may only celebrate the 1962 Missal by an indult. It would mean that Latin Rite priests do not have an inherent right to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.

The purpose of the Dossier is to demonstrate that, whatever people may have thought, the 1962 Missal was never lawfully suppressed. As such, it is a helpful supplement to Summorum Pontificum's declaration that the Johannine Missal remains an extraordinary form of the one Roman Rite.

I know there are those who would like the Church to come out and say, "Okay, we suppressed the traditional Roman Rite and replaced it with a different rite altogether. That flopped, so we're throwing out the Novus Ordo and going back to the traditional Roman Rite." But the Church just can't do that -- it would be a pastoral disaster almost as bad, if not as bad, as the original post-Vatican II liturgical reform (I'm tempted to put the word reform in scare quotes). Most Catholics are familiar with and comfortable with the Novus Ordo, and to decree its immediate suppression along the lines of what was done back in the 1960s would be highly imprudent and probably uncharitable too -- much as I think the unprecedented reform of the Roman Missal was. So, for the foreseeable future the Pauline Missal must and will remain the ordinary form of the Roman Rite . . . but we now have the official word from the Supreme Legislator of the Church that the traditional Mass is the extraordinary form, and any Latin Rite priest who is qualified and not canonically impeded has a legal right to celebrate it. It's better than a "universal indult," because it's not an "indult" at all -- it's a restoration of the rights and honor of the traditional Latin Mass. Those who hoped and prayed for a universal indult had set their sights too low: the Holy Father has given us better than that.

Br. Anthony said...

Jordan Potter said:

under the law of the Church

Anything that allows the Novus Ordo Missal and/or restricts the Tridentine Mass is not a law of the Church, but a law of churchmen that are acting on their own behalf and not the Bride of Christ.

Jordan Potter said...

Anything that allows the Novus Ordo Missal and/or restricts the Tridentine Mass is not a law of the Church, but a law of churchmen that are acting on their own behalf and not the Bride of Christ.

Well, that's nice-sounding in theory, I guess, but it doesn't have anything to do with the actually-lived experience of Catholics. It also raises the question of who decides what is the law of the Church if not the Holy See. If it is left to each individual Catholic to determine what the law of the Church really is (which is practically what you're saying), then how are we any different than Protestant heretics with their atomistic private judgment?

Br. Anthony said...

Jordan Potter,

It is the Divine Law and Church teaching that condemns the Novus Ordo Missae. I do not make an arbitrary condemnation. Here are a few references:

The Tridentine Profession of Faith

New Rite Condemned by the Tradition of the Church

The Ottaviani Intervention

The Problem of the Liturgical Reform

The Holy Father's words in the Motu Propio and letter that affirm the holiness of the New Rite is only political talk to allay the fears of the bishops. It is in contradiction to what he himself said as Cardinal Ratzinger:

Cardinal Ratzinger on the New Mass

What will it take before you appreciate the tremendous crisis in the Church? There is enough evidence over the last 40 years to demonstrate the incredible destruction in the Church caused by Vatican II and the New Mass. There is no doubt that they are both from hell!

Your attempts to defend the indefensible are consonant with the diabolical disorientation that keeps people in their confusion. I hope you come to the full realization of the truth.

God bless.

Jordan Potter said...

I've said many times that I think the post-Vatican II liturgical reform was botched. However, I agree with all the Popes since the 1960s that Vatican II is a valid and binding oecumenical council of the Church. I also agree with the Holy Father's insistence that Vatican II be interpreted according to a "hermeneutic of continuity" that reconciles and integrates its teachings as much as possible into the Tradition. But Benedict XVI has also observed that not every Council of the Church has proved to be effective and of truly lasting value and importance. We may well see such a thing in this case, especially since Vatican II was aimed specifically at mid-20th century societal issues and we're now living in the early 21st century. Still, I see no way that an orthodox Catholic can reject Vatican II as having its origin in hell. That's not how the Holy Spirit governs the Church.

Anonymous said...

Jordan Potter,

Where on earth did you ever read that priests of the Roman Rite are authorized only to celebrate the New Rite, and that therefore if the Ancient Rite is another rite they do not have permission to say it?

Read the Apostolic Constitution of Paul VI (Missale Romanum). Where, please tell me, is your theory supported by that document?

According to the sound Latin principle cited by the Dossier, it seems more reasonable and logical to presume that the AC of Paul VI promulgated no "Rite" but only a new "Missal", a book, which priests of the Roman Rite could use.

But lest we get befuddled by terms, let us admit a distinction between

i)a ritual,

ii) a book of rituals (Missale),

iii) a genus of rituals which has a particular idenity (a rite),

iv)and the juridical classification of the clergy or rituals of a patriarchy or some notable group within a patriarchy (a Rite).

I see your argument basedon the term "rite" in the last sense, I just mentioned. I disagree, as I have said with that interpretation; but perhaps the use of "rite" in the MP is used in that sense, and not in the 3rd sense of "rite"; if so, then the Pope isn't using a novelty of terms at all, but rather speaks in a juridical sense, rather than a liturgical one.

Finally, clearly Vatican II can and ought to be understood in continuity with tradition, but that does not require that it be without error (see my blog below for a lenghty demonstration of Papal Authority and Vatican II).

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
scholasticum.blogspot.com

Br. Anthony said...

Vatican II is not of the Holy Ghost, since it taught errors. The Holy Ghost cannot teach error. To say otherwise is blasphemous. Error is from hell and that is why I say that about the Council. I am in no way judging anybody, but attacking the text itself.

Vatican II is a break from Tradition. The Holy Father himself, prior to becoming pope, exclaimed that the decree on relgious liberty was an anti-syllabus of errors. How can you now sweep that under the rug? Vatican II must be desolved and forgotten. In the past, if one error was contained in a book, the whole book would be placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. This will be the fate of the Council and the New Mass.

Just as the SSPX was right about the legality of the Mass, you will one day see that they will be right regarding the errors contained in Vatican II. Then you will be ashamed of your current position. But I hope that you will come fully to Tradition before that time.

Jordan Potter said...

Where on earth did you ever read that priests of the Roman Rite are authorized only to celebrate the New Rite, and that therefore if the Ancient Rite is another rite they do not have permission to say it?

I did not say that Roman Rite priests are authorised "only" to celebrate the New Rite. Rather, I said that Roman Rite priests are authorised to celebrate the Mass of the Roman Rite, and it is unquestionably the case that the Mass of the Roman Rite is the Pauline Mass. That is settled law, though one might wish it were not so. It is also the law, thanks to the motu proprio of 7 July 2007, that the 1962 Mass is an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, which means Latin Rite priests essentially have as much right to celebrate according to the 1962 Missal as they have to celebrate according to the ordinary form.

Brother, is it your contention that a Latin Rite priest may, if he wishes, celebrate the Maronite liturgy or the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, without first getting permission? Eastern Catholic priests can be married -- does that law apply to Roman Rite priests, or isn't it rather the case that if you ever meet a married Latin Rite priest, it's because special permission was granted? So, if the Tridentine Mass is a separate rite, a Roman Rite priest would need permission from his bishop or other competent authority to celebrate it. But if the 1962 Missal and the 1969 Missal are both forms of the same rite, then anyone who has permission to celebrate according to the 1969 Missal must have permission to celebrate according to the 1962 Missal (all other things being equal).

This determination of Pope Benedict's is what has got so many bishops riled: when priests and laity had to ask them for an indult, the bishops could say no, and could keep the Tridentine Mass rare or nonexistent in their diocese (except when celebrated illictly). But Summorum Pontificum takes it all out of their hands: now their role is only to make sure that, when the Tridentine Mass is celebrated, it is done properly, in accordance with the laws and customs of the Church.

finegan said...

"But Summorum Pontificum takes it all out of their hands: now their role is only to make sure that, when the Tridentine Mass is celebrated, it is done properly, in accordance with the laws and customs of the Church."

Ah, but therein lies the problem. The liberal Bishops will use the spacious language of the Motu Proprio to thwart the desires of priests wanting to celebrate the old Mass. In his apparent desire to avoid conflict and accommodate dissenters, the Pope has left too many loopholes in this document. As a result, the road to fully restoring the TLM will be a rough one indeed.

But, I'm sure someone will claim I'm just a paranoid Traditionalist. Yeah, right.

Jordan Potter said...

Yeah, bishops who want to circumvent the law will do all kinds of things. When has it been otherwise. The road isn't going to be a smooth and easy one. It never has been in this valley of tears, and it never will be. But at least one or two major obstacles have been cleared out of our path. Let's not lose heart when we encounter resistance and opposition, because we will encounter resistance and opposition.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jordan Potter,

You write « I did not say that Roman Rite priests are authorised "only" to celebrate the New Rite. Rather, I said that Roman Rite priests are authorised to celebrate the Mass of the Roman Rite, and it is unquestionably the case that the Mass of the Roman Rite is the Pauline Mass. That is settled law, though one might wish it were not so. »

Where and when did the New Rite become "the Mass of the Roman Rite"; as I said a couple of times the AC of Paul VI does not establish it with such a status, and no where in that document is there any language to have this signification or import. Your contention therefore is false, and therefore your argument is unfounded.

Nor can one argue on the basis of any other ecclesiastical document other than Quo Primum, Summorum Pontificum or a papal document, because Quo Primum came first, and it established the Ancient Rite as THE Roman Rite; the AC of Paul VI and the MP of Benedict XVI do not alter that. The AC of Paul VI allows the use of a New Missal; the MP of Benedict XVI terms the Ancient Missal and the New Missal two forms of the Roman Rite; but it does not specify whether they are two liturigical forms of latin liturgy or two lawful forms of liturgical celebration, when it says this.

Therefore, what is not specified, cannot be reasonably said to be enacted, according to the abovementioned Latin principle of juridical interpretation.

Ergo, the Ancient Missale is The Roman Rite, and the New Rite is only permissible, and not required: that is why the MP says there are rights regarding never being prohibited from using the Ancient Rite, but says nothing about the rites regarding the new "rite".

I am speaking here of the strict interpretation of the law, not of what anyonm would have it mean.

Finally, I was in no way refering to another rite.

Br. Anthony: yes error is not from God nor from the Church, but since churchmen can err, ecclesiastical documents can contain errors; the documents are from the Church, but not the errors; that is why one can reject the errors without requiring the documents to be rejected. It is only documents which impose errors (like the decrees of the Council of Sardica) which must be rejected, not only as false and heretical, but as not being ecclesiastical.


Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

Juan Manuel Soria said...

Dear Bloggers:

Section 1 -second paragraph- of the papal Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum refers accidentally -but in a premeditated legislative way- to the status of the Rite of the Mass contained in the 1962 Missal. In its reference to that Missal (which is not a reference to the law governing the use of that Missal, regulated by “Quattuor abhinc annos” and “Ecclesia Dei” until July, 7th 2007) Summorum Pontificum issues:

"Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam ET NUNQUAM ABROGATAM, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet."

Canonically this section means only this: "Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam (…) uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet” or, in the English translation published here by Rorate Coeli: “It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 (…) as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.”.

But, theologically, the passage contains –declares and clarifies- also this: “(…) Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam ET NUNQUAM ABROGATAM, (…)” or, in the English translation published here by Rorate Coeli: “(…) the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 AND NEVER ABROGATED (…)”

This last clean definition -about the non abrogation of the 1962 Missal- is the theologically crucial point of the Motu Proprio. The Motu Proprio establishes that the 1970 Missal did not reform nor substitute the 1962 Missal. They are two different forms of the same Roman Rite. Thus the theological position stating that the tridentine Missal of 1962 was abrogated and replaced by the 1970 Missal (position sustained by Cardinal Arinze and many others bishops, cardinals and theologians -even inside Vatican walls-) has –since Summorum Pontificum and for first time- no theological grounds on Church´s magisterium. The 1970 liturgical reform was not –pursuant to Summorum Pontificum- a true reform of the Old Missal but a New Missal, a new form (“fabricated” in the Vatican) of the old roman rite, different from the previous form of the rite -codified by Saint Pius V and reformed for the last time by John XXIII with the 1962 Missal-. This is clear too in the seventh paragraph of Summorum Pontificun when Benedict XVI says: "Quo desiderio motus, Decessor noster Summus Pontifex Paulus VI libros liturgicos INSTAURATOS ET PARTIM INNOVATOS anno 1970 Ecclesiae latinae APPROBAVIT".

The juridical controversy about the licit or illicit use of the 1962 Missal -previously to Summorum Pontificum and after the promulgation of the 1970 Missal by Paul VI-, was not defined by the Motu Proprio itself, although it substitutes -simple and directly- “Quattuor abhinc annos” and “Ecclesia Dei” with its own (and in my opinon divinely inspired) regulations.

Nonetheless “ET NUNQUAM ABROGATAM” are three accidental simple words that seems written directly by the Holy Spirit, Who led the hand of the Holy Fahter to write them in order to justify all His pontificate "in aeternum".

Regards,

Br. Anthony said...

Brother Bugnolo,

Thank you for cleaning up my lack of fine distinctions.

God bless.

Jordan Potter said...

Where and when did the New Rite become "the Mass of the Roman Rite"

When? On Nov. 30, 1969, the first Sunday of Advent that year. Where? Everywhere in the Latin Church. That's what it says in Pope Paul VI's apostolic constitution Missale Romanum, dated 3 April 1969. It is now clear that the Pauline Missal is not the only Mass of the Roman Rite -- the Johannine Missal remains a form (use) of the Roman Rite -- but there is no way the words of Pope Paul's apostlic constitution can be read other than to that the new Missal is juridicallly mandated for all Latin Rite priests.

as I said a couple of times the AC of Paul VI does not establish it with such a status

You've said it, but the Church does not agree with you, and Summorum Pontificum clearly states that the Pauline Missal is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. A papal motu proprio has the immediate force of law, so the law of the Church clearly is that the Pauline Missal is the Mass of the Roman Rite. That, I think, explains why almost all Latin Rite priests celebrate it.

But then you've already declared that any law of the Church that contradicts what you think to be correct is not a valid law at all ("Anything that allows the Novus Ordo Missal and/or restricts the Tridentine Mass is not a law of the Church, but a law of churchmen that are acting on their own behalf and not the Bride of Christ."), so I know there is nothing I can tell you that can convince you that the law of the Church establishes the Pauline Missal as the Mass of the Roman Rite, with the Johannine Missal as the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.

Therefore, what is not specified, cannot be reasonably said to be enacted, according to the abovementioned Latin principle of juridical interpretation. . . I am speaking here of the strict interpretation of the law, not of what anyone would have it mean.

Church laws are not to be interpreted strictly or in isolation from other laws, but are to be understood in relationship with other relevant laws. Not Quo Primum, not Missale Romanum, and not even Summorum Pontificum, are to be read in isolation. The Council Fathers of Vatican II called for a revision of the Roman Missal. The Missal was then revised, though the revision apparently wasn't what the Council Fathers had in mind. Still, it was accepted by the Pope and promulgated for the whole Latin Church as the called-for revision. The Pope again reaffirmed the legal status of the revised Missal. If that's not enough to clearly enact the new Missal as liturgical law for the Roman Rite, then there will never been a clear enactment to satisfy you. (Calling to mind again your words, "Anything that allows the Novus Ordo Missal and/or restricts the Tridentine Mass is not a law of the Church, but a law of churchmen that are acting on their own behalf and not the Bride of Christ.")

Ergo, the Ancient Missal is The Roman Rite, and the New Rite is only permissible, and not required:

Well, you said before that the revised Missal is not permissible at all, but it's good that you now are willing to concede that it is at least permissible if not required. I would think, however, that if it's the ordinary form, it would probably be a pretty common thing in our parishes (well, except for the fact that so-called "Extraordinary" Ministers of Holy Communion are more plentiful than dirt . . .).

that is why the MP says there are rights regarding never being prohibited from using the Ancient Rite, but says nothing about the rights regarding the new "rite".

The motu proprio mentions the rights regarding the Johannine Missal because that is precisely what the motu proprio is about, and because those rights have been in doubt and subject to dispute. The rights pertaining to the Pauline Missal are not in doubt -- it is and remains the ordinary form of the Roman Rite -- so the Pope didn't need to mention them.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jordan Potter,

You are somewhat confused.

I am not Br. Anthony, and Br. Anthony is not me. Nor are my comments his, nor his mine.

You respond to both our comments as if we were one person.

How can I trust your judgment then, regarding Papal Documents?

Tolle et lege!

The AC of Paul VI did not establish the New Rite as THE Roman Rite; when I challenged you on this point, you cited no passage indicative of what you claim.

You seem quite satisfied to hold the princpile: What I claim needs no proof other than my own claim.

And when you are challenged on substantial points, you habit seems to be to retreat to false interpretations of other minor ponits or to confound statments, always to create a straw man which you can refute for victory points.

Let us be men of the truth, and admit it.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Jordan Potter said...

You are somewhat confused.

Yes, I was.

I am not Br. Anthony, and Br. Anthony is not me. Nor are my comments his, nor his mine.

I'm very sorry. I didn't notice at first that there were two religious brothers commenting here, both with first names starting with the letter A, and who both do not accept the authority of the Holy Father's motu proprio of 7 July 2007. Then when I saw that there were two, I didn't notice that I had taken Brother Anthony's fulmination as having come from you. That would explain why you seemed to be contradicting yourself about whether or not Latin Rite priests are allowed to celebrate the Mass of Paul VI. Mea culpa.

How can I trust your judgment then, regarding Papal Documents?

I never claimed infallibility, and I have seen that you aren't infallible either, having started out your comments here with a misquote and misinterpretation of the Dossier. So if you have reason to question my judgment regarding papal documents, so do I have reason to question your judgment.

The AC of Paul VI did not establish the New Rite as THE Roman Rite

First of all, according to the Church it's not a "New Rite," it's a revision of the Roman Missal. (And in my view and the view of many, a pretty hamhanded revision.) Second of all, if it's not the Mass of the Roman Rite, which Rite is it the Mass of? Mozarabic perhaps?

when I challenged you on this point, you cited no passage indicative of what you claim.

That's because it's the entirety of Missale Romanum that establishes the revised Missal as pertaining to the Roman Rite. It's hardly possible that the Pope was establishing it as the Mass of some non-Roman Rite, after all.

You seem quite satisfied to hold the principle: What I claim needs no proof other than my own claim.

Don't be silly. I hold to no such principle, as can be seen by my reference to various documents and statements therein to support what I said.

And when you are challenged on substantial points, your habit seems to be to retreat to false interpretations of other minor points or to confound statements, always to create a straw man which you can refute for victory points.

You must have me confused with someone else (how's that for chutzpah, coming from a guy who had you confused with someone else). When challenged on substantial points, I simply pointed out what the documents of the Church say. Now you come out with an allegation that I am falsely interpreting minor points. Which ones? Certainly not the legally-binding decree of the Holy Father that the Pauline Missal is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite? For that's hardly a minor point -- it goes directly to the heart of what we're talking about here. And what straw men do you mean? Yes, I confounded Brother Anthony's statement with yours, but it wasn't to create a straw man that I could knock down for victory points. It was a honest mistake.

If it is really your contention that the revised Missal and the old Missal are two separate rites, and not, as the Church says, two forms/uses of the one Roman Rite, then it is as I said: Latin Rite priests would need special permission to celebrate the old Mass. The language of Summorum Pontificum makes clear that is not the case: the old Missal was never abrogated, no indult is needed for it.

But if that is not your contention, then you shouldn't have said, "obviously the NO and the TLM are not two forms of the same rite," and you shouldn't be insisting that the Pauline Missal is not the Roman Rite Missal (or one of the two Roman Rite Missals).

Jordan Potter said...

To elaborate on this point:

when I challenged you on this point, you cited no passage indicative of what you claim.

That's because it's the entirety of Missale Romanum that establishes the revised Missal as pertaining to the Roman Rite. It's hardly possible that the Pope was establishing it as the Mass of some non-Roman Rite, after all.

Notice the title of the apostolic constitution: The Roman Missal. The constitution deals with the revision of the Missal of the Roman Rite that was called with the highest authority in the Church here below: a valid oecumenical council approved by the Successor of St. Peter. The council called for the Roman Missal to the revised, it was revised, and the Pope approved the revision in 1969 (then fixed some serious problems in the revision and reissued it in 1970). How, then, could it be claimed that the Pauline Missal is not a Roman Rite Missal? Or how could it be claimed that Missale Romanum does not establish the revised Missal as the Missal of the Roman Rite?

Anonymous said...

Jordan Potter,

Thank you for responding.

In response to my asking for the textual evidence that the AC of Paul VI establishes the New Rite as THE Rite of the Roman Rite, or as THE ROMAN RITE, that is asking where in the AC it does that, you write:

"That's because it's the entirety of Missale Romanum that establishes the revised Missal as pertaining to the Roman Rite. It's hardly possible that the Pope was establishing it as the Mass of some non-Roman Rite, after all."

O.K. Thank you for admitting that your argument is not founded upon any particular line of text in the AC. My point is thus proven, your argument has no foundation.

We were not saying that the New Rite was not a "roman rite", but whether it was THE Roman Rite. So your argument here is praeter rem.

Again you write:

"Notice the title of the apostolic constitution: The Roman Missal. The constitution deals with the revision of the Missal of the Roman Rite that was called with the highest authority in the Church here below: a valid oecumenical council approved by the Successor of St. Peter."

I'm sorry, but the title of the document establishes nothing, because no where among the established norms of juridical interpretation does the title of a document alter its meaning; the packaging may confuse you, but the contents are what are probative. No where in the document does it say that the Roman Rite henceforth shall be held to be the rituals of this Missal; because obviously the rituals of the Roman Rite are more than are contained in any given missal (there are other books for the Rite). So an appeal to the title, or even to the AC fails for want of matter.

You write,further:

"The council called for the Roman Missal to the revised, it was revised, and the Pope approved the revision in 1969 ... Or how could it be claimed that Missale Romanum does not establish the revised Missal as the Missal of the Roman Rite?"

The Council spoke about more than the revision of the rituals of the Mass, or the Missal. But neither the Council nor the AC sought to abrogate the former Missale and former liturgical books such as the Rituale. Ergo, neither the Council nor the AC of Paul VI established the New Rites as the Rite of the Roman Rite, because obviously "The" requires either a unicity of existence or a predominace of authority.

Arguably after the AC, there were 2 Missals, and thus no longer a unicity of existence of one missal with no other missal existing. But Quo Primum established the Ancient Missal witha level of authority (read Quo Primum) unequaled by the terms of the AC, howsoever much Paul VI personally may have intended or expressed on other occasions, because, as I have said several times, it is the text itself of a law which determines the effects of the law, not what others, even the author of the law, may have intended or wanted.

E. G.: If a king wants all his subjects to eat Chedder chesse rather than Blue Chese, and he decrees that no Gorgonzola shall be eaten in all his realm, not attending to the fact that there are more kinds of Blue Cheeese than Gorgonzola; his wishes may be otherwise, but his law binds no one to forgo Rochefort.

What a Pope enacts by law, is what he does as Pope; what he wants to enact by law but does not enact represents only the wishes of the man, which wishes bind no one.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
franciscan-archive.org

Jordan Potter said...

O.K. Thank you for admitting that your argument is not founded upon any particular line of text in the AC. My point is thus proven, your argument has no foundation.

I admitted no such thing. I said (my word meant that) my argument is founded on every line of text in the AC, from the first two words (where the title comes from) right down to the Pope's signature.

I'm sorry, but the title of the document establishes nothing, because no where among the established norms of juridical interpretation does the title of a document alter its meaning

The title is the first two words of the document, which immediately tells us what the subject of the apostolic constitution is: the "Roman" Missal. So I rather think those words of the apostolic constitution are a helpful guide as to what Paul VI was doing when he issued it.

No where in the document does it say that the Roman Rite henceforth shall be held to be the rituals of this Missal

I never said or implied that the rituals of the Pauline Missal constitute the entirety of the Roman Rite, and I didn't say nor do I believe that the Pauline Missal and the other post-Vatican II liturgical and ritual books constitute the only valid and lawful form of the Roman Rite. I said the Pauline Missal is the Mass of the Roman Rite. I also said that the Johannine Missal is the Mass of the Roman Rite.

Ergo, neither the Council nor the AC of Paul VI established the New Rites as the Rite of the Roman Rite, because obviously "The" requires either a unicity of existence or a predominance of authority.

It's pretty clear from the (chequered) history of the liturgical reform beginning with Sacrosactum Consilium that the Pauline Missal has been granted "predominance of authority" by the Holy See -- it's the rule rather than the exception, and there's not a single document of the Church expressing displeasure or qualms about that (quite the contrary). The Holy Father has reaffirmed that predominance of authority by defining it as the "ordinary form," while acknowledging that the Johannine Missal is the extraordinary form and was never abrogated. So, the law of the Church is as it says in Summorum Pontificum, the Pauline Missal is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. Just because someone insists that it's not doesn't change what the motu proprio says.

Thanks for affording me the opportunity to attempt to clarify and correct my earlier statements.

Juan Manuel Soria said...

Dear Bloggers:

Wise words from two saint Popes, who have made use of the word "ROOM" in the same sense (a little of hermeneutics of CONTINGENT DISCONTINUITY in fidelity to the BINDING character of the FAITH of the Vatican Council II):

"From the same erroneous conception springs your abuse of celebrating the Mass called that of St. Pius V.

You know full well that this RITE had itself been the result of successive changes, and that the ROMAN Canon remains the first of the Eucharistic Prayers authorized today.

The present reform derived its raison d’être and its guidelines from the Council and from the HISTORICAL SOURCES OF THE LITURGY. It enables the laity to draw greater nourishment from the word of God. Their more effective participation leaves intact the unique role of the priest acting in the person of Christ.

We have sanctioned this reform by Our authority, requiring that it be adopted by ALL Catholics. If, in general, We have not judged it good to permit any further delays or exceptions to this adoption, it is with a view to the spiritual good and the unity of the entire ecclesial community, because for CAHOTLICS OF THE ROMAN RITE, the Ordo Missae is a privileged sign of their unity.

It is also because, in your case, the old rite is in fact the expression of a WARPED ecclesiology, and a ground for dispute with the Council and its reforms, under the pretext that in the old rite alone are preserved, without their meaning being obscured, the true sacrifice of the Mass and the ministerial priesthood. WE CANNOT ACCEPT THIS ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT, THIS UNJUSTIFIED ACCUSATION, nor CAN WE TOLERATE that the Lord's Eucharist, the sacrament of unity, should be the object of such division (cf. 1 Cor 11:18), and that it should even be an instrument and SIGN OF REBELLION.

Of course there is ROOM in the Church for a certain pluralism, but in licit matters and in obedience. THIS IS NOT UNDERSTOOD BY THOSE WHO REFUSE THE SUM TOTAL OF THE LITURGICAL REFORM; nor indeed on the other hand by those who imperil the holiness of the real presence of the Lord and of His Sacrifice.(...)

2. Let us come now to the more precise requests which you formulated during the audience of 11 September. You would like to see recognized the right to celebrate Mass in various places of worship according to the Tridentine rite. You wish also to continue to train candidates for the priesthood according to your criteria, ''as before the Council," in seminaries apart, as at Econe. But BEHIND THESE QUESTIONS AND OTHER SIMILAR ONES, which we shall examine later on in detail, IT IS TRULY NECESSARY TO SEE THE INTRICACY OF THE PROBLEM: AND THE PROBLEM IS THEOLOGICAL. For these questions have become concrete ways of expressing an ecclesiology that is WARPED in essential points."

Letter from Paul VI to Msgr. Lefebvre, October 11th, 1976

and ...

"We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the BREAK which arose over this, however, were at a DEEPER LEVEL. Many people who clearly accepted the BINDING character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. (...) At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation HAS NOT YET COME ABOUT. (...) I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and MAKE ROOM FOR EVERYTHING THAT THE FAITH ITSELF ALLOWS.

THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE TWO EDITIONS of the ROMAN MISSAL. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, BUT NO RUPTURE. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage CANNOT, as a matter of PRINCIPLE, EXCLUDE CELEBRATING ACCORDING TO THE NEW BOOKS. The TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE NEW RITE would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and HOLINESS."

Letter of Benedict XVI
to the bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter "MOTU PROPRIO DATA"
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM.

Regards,

Anonymous said...

Juan Manuel Soria,

These two papal letters that you quote are quite remarkable in their divergence: the one shows an inimical animus against personal criticism, the other expresses the dismay that what is sacred could be subborned by such a rash, aggiornamentalist triumphalism.

Here we have 2 popes expresssing themselves in their own words, as men, not as Pope, because they impose no obligation upon us to accept their views of things.

All norms of canonical and theological interpretation require us to hold these statements as not infallible and not part of the ordinary magisterium (the contents of which must be the same as what has always been taught everywhere by all).

Jordan Potter,

You forget that you claimed that the New Rites are the Roman Rite. I proved conclusively that they are not. The ordinary rite or use in the Roman Rite is not necessarily the Roman Rite, because as I pointed out before several times, the "Roman Rite" as a category of clerical membership is one thing, as a category of liturgical expression another. The Ancient Roman Missal and other books are the only Roman Rite in the liturgical sense: the new Rites are only a usage of the Roman Rite in the canonical sense.

Calling the New Rites the ordinary usage, changes nothing, nor does it establish them as The Roman Rite, or as part of the Roman Rite in the litugical sense.

Paul VI's criticism of the Archbishop is founded upon a refusal to examine the theological underpinnings of the New Missal and liturgical reform: many theologians from Cardinal Bacci, Ottaviano, etc. have clearly shown that its theology is contrary to Trent.

Now canonically what is contrary to the Catholic Faith cannot be a roman rite, because then you would have the law of prayer contradict the law of believing. Nor does B16 statment that they express the same faith determine anything; because he does not require this judgement to be held by anyone, let alone by catholic and divine faith; whereas Trent does require this level of assent to its theology of the Mass and Eucharist: therefore we must reject all liturgical reforms even those approved for parts of the Church by the Pope which diverge form the Faith of the Church and its expression taught from Christ through the Apostles for 2000 years, and expressed by Trent in a manner that obliges everyone.

Otherwise we must hold contradictory positions or deny Trent or at least the moral obligation to follow Trent in pracice; wheras Catholics have every held, and Vatican I teaches, that the Pope Himself has no authority to act contrary to infallible teachings.

I am sorry if this troubles some of you, but the Pope is not impeccable, whereas infallible teaching never fails. To hold that a pope cannever impose by his personal will, without using a formal act of the Apostolic Authority, an opinion or practice contrary to the faith, would be to assert a principle of papal fidelity never taught by the Church, the Fathers, the Doctors or the Saints.

The so called "hermenutics of discontinuity" is a epithet used by immature men who refuse to examine the principles of the Faith to judge according to truth; and who prefer human fallible politics to immutable and eternal teachings.

Archbishop Lefebvre chose the better part, and he shall be glorified in eternity for a level virtue surpassing any every practiced by Paul VI or B16.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org