Rorate Caeli

40 years of Missale Romanum and the new Roman Rite - IV
A liturgical tale in three acts

Dramatis Personae

Pope Saint Pius V
Pope Paul VI
Pope Benedict XVI
____________

Act I

Pope Saint Pius V: "Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or recitation of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. " (Quo Primum Tempore - July 14, 1570)

____________

Act II

Pope Paul VI: "We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may 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 derogation." (Apostolic Constitution "Missale Romanum" - April 3, 1969)


"The Novus Ordo was promulgated in order to replace the old one, after studied deliberation, in the execution of the norms which emanated from the Second Vatican Council." (Speech to the Secret Consistory - on the matter of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - May 24, 1976)

____________

Act III

Pope Benedict XVI: "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 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church." (Summorum Pontificum - July 7, 2007)

"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." (Letter to the Bishops on the publication of Summorum Pontificum - July 7, 2007)

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

When these three Popes are put together one can see that one of them is the odd man out. And clearly they cannot all be right. Hmmmm... make you think about those of the clergy and the faithful labelled as disobedient for all those years.

Complete Vindication.

Anonymous said...

This story is not complete. Please add the following text under Paul VI. What is critical is not the Apostolic Constitution "Missale Romanum", 1970, but the Instruction "De Missali Romano", A.A.S., No. 9, 30 September, 1971 and cited by Paul VI himself as authority for the general suppression of the old Mass. It was signed not by Paul VI but by Cardinal Tabera and Msgr. Bugnini, respectively the Prefect and Secretary of the C.D.W. Here is the relevant text:

"2. . . . From the day on which the definitive translation must be adopted in the celebrations in the vernacular languages, those who continue to use the Latin language must uniformly make use of the renewed texts, whether for the Mass or for the Liturgy of the Hours [gobbledegook meaning The Divine Office].

3. For those who, for reason of advanced age or other serious reasons, may encounter grave difficulty in the use of the new Ordo of the Roman Missal, of the Lectionary of the Mass or of the Liturgy of the Hours, it is permitted, with the consent of the proper Ordinary and only in the celebration sine populo to continue, as a whole or in part, the use of the Roman Missal in the typical edition of the year 1962 brought up to date by the decrees of the years 1965 and 1967 and the use of the previous Roman Breviary."

Comment: This law is ultra vires; it is contra legem. It cannot be reconciled with "Summorum Pontificum", 2007. Such restrictions were beyond the authority of this Instruction because the Pope had not (and arguably could not) abrogated use of the 1962 Missal.

Please add this passage to the play. It is crucial!

P.K.T.P.

Hebdomadary said...

It makes me physically sick to my stomach to read these words, barring those of Pope Benedict.

Anyone, blogger priest, Pope, Catholic layman or simply posessing an ounce of common sense, educated or otherwise, who claims they cannot discern the deliberate and malicious hatchet job that Paul VI and his wrecking generation have perpetrated on the Roman Catholic Faith, is either deliberately self-deluding, or a BALD FACED LIAR trying to prop up the status quo for some end, either ideological or personal.

This WHOLE ecclesial situation is a FARCE. It flies in the face of 1,963 year (very possibly 1,954 years) of organic development. It is the TAIL WAGGING THE DOG. History - especially since everything being expressed on the internet in this digital age will be a part of the future historical record - will comdemn utterly those who stuck their heads in the sand and said nothing while their civilization, and its FIRMEST columnar support and GREATEST fountainhead - the Catholic Church - tore itself to shreds.

This age is unlike ANY other in history, it is ALL being recorded. It will ALL come back to haunt us like JUDGEMENT DAY, mark my words. Withal, the modernists may have waited an age too late in that regard, since we have the tools to expose these acts as they happen now. But when the tide turns decisively, judgement will be harsh and deserved, on account of the souls that have been tortured, tormented, and some ultimately lost by the destruction of the church's sacred inheritance.

By their fruits you shall know them; yes, we know you, lax priests, relativists, modernists, and assorted heretics: you should be very afraid...if your pride had not desensitized you to it.

Peter said...

Hebdomadary.

PLACESG

P - pride, is the first.

Robert said...

Thank you for these texts. I had not realized that Pope Paul VI had indeed issued something that could be construed as an abrogation. When I read Summorum Pontificum, I just assumed that it could not have been the case. Please excuse what is perhaps a naive question, but how does Benedict XVI justify his statement that it was never abrogated when these texts of the time of Paul VI are extant?

Robert Phelps said...

The old mass was never abrogated. No one ever argued that. It was, however, OBROGATED, as is clear from the quote of Paul VI. This means that it was simply replaced by newer legislation.

alban said...

Three observations:

1) If the consistory concerning Abp Lebebvre was secret, how did this blogger obtain the text of HH Paul VI's speech? It would be good for the blogger to provide a link so that this alleged statement may be verified. Those quotations taken from other documents are easily obtained from Vatican sources. I respectfully await the publication of a reputable link to the address at the secret consistory.

2) Robert. There is no real difficulty in reconciling papal statements on this matter. HH Paul VI did not abrogate the missal of HH Pius V; it is clear from "De Missali Romano" (mentioned by anonymous) that use of this missal was still permitted, though on a very selective basis. HH John Paul II extended that basis and the present Holy Father has generously further extended the norms for its use. It does, however, remain the Extraordinary Form.

The Holy Father has written (much to the annoyance of some) that the celebration of the Mass in the Ordinary Form and Extradordinary Form are both expressions of the same Roman Rite. For HH Benedict XVI, there is no conflict between these two expressions. I, for one, completely agree with him. In extending the norms for the use of the EF, His Holiness is acting as a caring parent.

3) There are some who would demonise HH Paul VI, and they do damage to the Body of Christ by their bitter and hateful statements. The present Holy Father referred to this type of behaviour in his recent letter concerning the lifting of the excommunications when he quoted from Galatians 5:13-15 "But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another". The Pope also wrote that he had encountered from self-proclaimed defenders of the Church "...arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions....". In this final week of Lent, we would be wise to listen to his concerns.

Cogistai said...

Robert is correct re. obrogation vs abrogation.

Quo Primum established a juridical framework granting all priests the right to use the Missal of Pius V which was cancelled out by Missale Romanum. The latter action did not actively forbid the old liturgical usage, but it did not positively allow for it either, except in very limited circumstances.

In other words, Paul VI did not actively forbid use of the older liturgical rite with Missale Romanum. He did, however, replace the previous law with one giving the same right previously given to the older liturgical form to the revised liturgy. This means that there was a replacement of one liturgical law with another, i.e. an obrogation.

Functionally an obrogation is same as an abrogaton. Thus until 1984 there was no legal standing for the older liturgy in the Church. In 1988 this changed and now there are different rules in place still. But let us be clear. There was no allowance for the old liturgy prior to 1984 apart from some very specific and limited permission as set down in indults issued by Pope Paul VI in 1970 and confirmed by the CDW with the approval of Pope Paul VI in June of 1971.

In fact the indults of 1970, 1984 and 1988 are all tacit acknowledgment of precisely this fact. Had the old liturgy indeed been permitted all along, no indults would have been required.

It is clear then that any claim that the use of the older liturgy was allowed between 1971 and 1984 other than in those specifically set down is and was erroneous. There was absolutely no universal allowance from November 30, 1969 until July 7, 2007. And between 1984 (the start of the wider papal indults) and September 14, 2007 the requirement for the consent of the local ordinary remained.

Joe B said...

This is bigger than the mass. Pope Saint Pius X saw this trouble coming and lamented he couldn't do anything to stop it, so I don't think any pope could have. This is even bigger than the pope. This seems to be Satan's time ('You shall soon have your hundred years and your power over those who would cooperate with you'). Only Our Lady can stop this train from coming completely off the tracks, and since it isn't happening yet, we may strongly suspect that the consecration really hasn't been done acceptably and simply must be, and soon. Pope Benedict is a good pope with a good conscience, but he's walking a tightrope, and whether or not he is philosophically on our side or not is irrelevant, as he cannot step off the rope on either side anyway. On one side is clearly massive schism, and on the other the execution of tradition. No human can win this war, so pray much for the Holy Father to do that consecration. Forget the VCII talks with SSPX, we have to have that consecration.

Dan Hunter said...

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another".

Alban;

The Holy Father was not referring to Traditionalists when making this statement, but rather to the recent spat of liberal screaming and whining.

He was referring to the German Bishop Conferences of the world, and all the dissenting voices within the Church.

Traditionalists typically are obedient to the Holy Father in his upholding the Magisterial teaching of Holy Mother Church.

Anonymous said...

Peter: If I were you, I would concentrate on the beam in your own eye first. You have no idea, obviously, how angry you come across. I get the impression that you have a chip on your shoulder. Now don't fly off the handle! Think about what I have written.

AZ

Anonymous said...

I think people reluctantly accepted the changes that were proposed and implemented in the 1965 "Missal" but 67 and 70 was the last straw. Confusion reigned. Maybe, just maybe had Pope Paul stuck with the 65 Missal some of this chaos could have been avoided. But Bugnini was at the helm of the locomotive and Paul obviously by the end had no control. Suppression of the 62 Missal backfired with the result being what we have today. Changing the whole praxis of Mass and the Sacraments was too much for lay people and the Church to absorb, and even worse in just a few years.

Peter said...

AZ

always good advice. To be sure I have red hair. And yes, we shall all be singing Ubi caritas in a few short days.

However I note the post of Hebdom's I was actually commenting on has been removed.

Respectfully, I think I am not alone in being angry, I was responding to this series of posts, and many of its commenters, and their corresponding tone extraordinary venom against the office of the papacy.

Dan Hunter, I think indeed that Pope Benedict XVI DID have everyone in mind.

geds said...

Well done Cogistai for a clearly expressed statement of the TRUTH about what Paul VI did, and what it meant for the whole Church. Indults are indults and contradict, as points of fact, claims that the Mass of 1962 was retained as an "option". It certainly wasn't. It was replaced by the Mass of 1970 until the next version comes along.

Anonymous said...

Alban said-

"1) If the consistory concerning Abp Lebebvre was secret, how did this blogger obtain the text of HH
Paul VI's speech? It would be good for the blogger to provide a link so that this alleged statement may be verified. Those quotations taken from other documents are easily obtained from Vatican sources. I respectfully await the publication of a reputable link to the address at the secret consistory."

Alban, just click on the section in between the brackets and you will have the speech immediately foem none other than the Official Website of the Holy See!

Robert said...

Hmm. I may be more confused now than when we started. I thought that by saying that the Old Mass had never been abrogated that Benedict XVI was actually saying that those indults were not necessary in reality.

Anonymous said...

I disagree that the Tridentine Mass was ever legally abrogated. Why do you think Pope Benedict said it was NEVER abrogated? He did not say that it was at any time abrogated or partially abrogated. Even when the so called Agatha Christie Indult was issued by Pope Paul VI it was not a proper indult nor was the 1984 Indult. You can't indult something that is not forbidden. What part of the Holy Father's use of NEVER is incorrect? He needs to know these things.

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

As Cogistai said above, there was no Abrogation (note the A at the beginning of the word), but there was most definitely an Obrogation (note the O at the beginning of the word. Please read carefully.

Joe B said...

It does seem the more the Novus Ordo crowd, including Pope Benedict XVI, try to explain their previous views, the worse they make it!

John McFarland said...

Gents,

A couple of thoughts.

It's well known that in 1988, a group of nine Vatican big wheels (including then Cardinal Ratzinger) concluded unanimously (or all but unanimously) that the traditional Mass was neither abrogated nor obrogated. I am no more a canonist than any of you, but I suspect that Pope Paul's words have rather less force than meets the eye.

Does anyone have a theory as to how, though never abrogated or obrogated, the traditional Mass got to be the extraordinary "extraordinary" The Pope does not say -- probably because he has he has no reason. A cynic might suspect that he just makes it up as he goes along; and not rule out his coming up with something else tomorrow or the next day.

Anonymous said...

The official Novus Ordo Mass is the Latin Typical Edition. Since it is rarely said that way, it makes more sense to me that this Ordinary Mass becomes extra-ordinay when it is said in any vernacular language. It seems to me very extra-ordinary in many of the various ways it is often celebrated.

I wonder what St. Pope Pius V might have to say about his codification of the Traditional Mass in light of waht we are experiencing today after 40 years of fighting to retain it.

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

Dear Brothers in Christ,

Those who hold that the TLM was abrogated or obrogated do not understand the Papal Primacy.

A general law or indult, as such was Quo Primum of St. Pius V, cannot be abrogated or obgrogated except by explicit mention. Paul VI did neither. He merely authorized the publication of a new Missal. He may have personally intended either, but as legislator he must explicitly enact his intention for it to be obligatory and formally effective.

Yes, de facto it was abrogated or obrogated, but in law it was never so.

B16 is speaking formally according to the law when he says that it was never abrogated. He could just as well say never obrogated, too.

If you read only the Code, you will not understand any of this, as you need also to read a tract of dogmatic theology on Papal power.

A blessed Holy Week to one and all,

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

geds said...

Liturgical Law needs specialized knowledge!
In his apostolic constitution of April 3, 1969 promulgating the revised Missale Romanum, Paul VI abrogated the previous Missal in these words:

"We wish these laws and regulations to be firm and in force from now on, regardless of what our predecessors might have published in apostolic constitutions and ordinances and other regulations, even those worthy of special mention and exception."

This is a standard revoking formula (non obstantibus Constitutionibus ... ). It revokes all universal laws and universal customs contrary to it. By it, the use of Missale Romanum of 1962 became illicit once the celebration of Mass according to the novus ordo became mandatory.

A June 14, 1971 notification of the S.C. for Divine Worship said that the date for mandatory use of the new Missal was the date established by each conference of bishops (DOL 1771). An exception was made for priests of advanced years, those suffering illness, or those who have other serious difficulties using the Missal; they could continue to use the 1962 Missal with the consent of their Ordinary.

Jordanes said...

Geds, if your interpretation of Paul VI’s constitution is correct, then why did the commission of cardinals under John Paul II (including Cardinal Ratzinger) find that your interpretation is wrong, and why has the Holy Father formally declared that the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal was never abrogated? I think you’re missing something. (Also note that the 1969 edition of the new Missal was abortive --- the promulgation of the new Missal had to be redone a year later.)

pclaudel said...

Jordanes wrote, "Geds, . . . why did the commission of cardinals under John Paul II (including Cardinal Ratzinger) find that your interpretation is wrong, and why has the Holy Father formally declared that the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal was never abrogated? I think you’re missing something."

Jordanes's objection has already been answered (though evidently not to his taste) by Mr. McFarland: "A cynic might suspect that he [the present pope] just makes it up as he goes along and not rule out his coming up with something else tomorrow or the next day."

It's clear, however, that Mr. McFarland is speaking ironically, since virtually everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear (not only cynics) will find himself perforce reaching the same conclusion—unless, that is, he's a paid-up member of the Ratzinger Fan Club.

Anonymous said...

Geds,

You wrote:

"Liturgical Law needs specialized knowledge!

"In his apostolic constitution of April 3, 1969 promulgating the revised Missale Romanum, Paul VI abrogated the previous Missal in these words:

« We wish these laws and regulations to be firm and in force from now on, regardless of what our predecessors might have published in apostolic constitutions and ordinances and other regulations, even those worthy of special mention and exception.»

Dear Geds,

You need to read that entire document. That paragraph refers not to the abrogation of the formal missal, but to the determinations of 4 items in the New Missal.

As for the instructions emanating from Congregations, as I said, you need to read a tract on Papal power, because no decree signed by anyone less than a pope, can abolish, abrogate, or obrogate a decree of a Roman Pontiff which expressely forbids this type of intervention.

Read Quo Primum of St. Pius V....PLEASE!

Your arguments, therefore, are specious, and prater rem!

But your arguments are the general ones used to confuse millions of souls during the last 40 years.

Jordanes said...

Jordanes's objection has already been answered (though evidently not to his taste) by Mr. McFarland: "A cynic might suspect that he [the present pope] just makes it up as he goes along and not rule out his coming up with something else tomorrow or the next day."

Mr. McFarland’s remark does not in any way explain how it was that the Church determined that, contrary to Geds’ claim, the 1962 Missal was never abrogated. Your comment is interesting, however, in that it could be interpreted to mean that you agree with Geds that the Church really did abrogate the 1962 Missal and that therefore the Church is wrong to say that qualified Roman Rite priests may celebrate the Eucharist with it.

It's clear, however, that Mr. McFarland is speaking ironically, since virtually everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear (not only cynics) will find himself perforce reaching the same conclusion—unless, that is, he's a paid-up member of the Ratzinger Fan Club.

Mr. Claudel, it’s long been evident to me that little if anything that you or Mr. McFarland have to say about the Holy Father is worth anyone’s attention.

geds said...

If Paul VI did not mean the text to abrogate the whole of the 1965 and 1967 versions of the Missal he would have been more specific rather than less.
Pius V’s bull, Quo primum tempore, did not grant a perpetual indult,” or privilege. This was a legislative act, universal law requiring the use of Missale Romanum in the whole Latin Church, except for those dioceses and religious orders that had their own liturgies for at least 200 years. It was not a privilege for any individual, group, or particular territory. Laws enacted by one legislator can be revoked by a successor (canon 20), as Paul VI did with respect to the use of the Missal of Paul VI. The so-called Novus Ordo, or new rite of Mass of Paul VI, is not really a new creation, but a revision of the previous rite, popularly called the Tridentine Rite Mass.
And where is the official record of this infamous meeting of Cardinals? And why did JPII not then withdraw the two Indults as no longer necessary?