This week’s The Word From Rome (which may have to get retitled "The Word From New York" given John Allen’s plans to relocate to the states) contains a piece about the speculations that Pope Benedict would announce a universal indult for celebrating the Tridentine Rite of Mass during Triduum.
Personally, I always thought this was a long shot, though I anticipate that there will be greater and possibly universal permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite at some point. It was the timing of publicly announcing it during Holy Week that was the issue, since this would take the focus off of the Holy Week celebrations entirely, with a media firestorm errupting.
Allen has been talking to some Vatican sources about the kind of reactions B16 has been getting in his discussions with cardinals on the topic:
"Whenever there have been meetings about this among the cardinals, it’s not just that there’s division," he said. "The overwhelming majority is against it [universal permission to celebrate the old rite]. It’s not like it’s fifty-fifty."
This source pointed out that just two weeks ago, in Benedict’s closed-door meeting with cardinals, the bulk of cardinals who spoke were against such a move.
"If it were up to Castrillon Hoyos, it would already have happened," the source said, referring to Colombian Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission for traditionalist Catholics.
"But Benedict is trying to operate on the basis of consensus, and there’s just no consensus," he said.
Another senior Vatican official said simply, "It is not a theme that is yet mature."
Here’s Allen’s bottom-line assessment:
Given the way Benedict XVI has played his cards close to the chest on other matters, it’s possible that a document is in the works without most of his key advisors knowing about it. But so far, on this issue, what we have is a lot of smoke in search of a fire.
There is an excellent analysis of Mr. Allen’s article here:
Allen and the “Consensus” Myth – A Chronology of Events
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/04/allen-and-consensus-myth-chronology-of.html
I don’t know that I agree with the assessment of Allen’s motives at the end of the Rorate Caeli piece, but I do think the analysis makes a number of good points.
Why is it that no one seems to know anything about the meeting of the pope and the dicastery heads which occurred on April 7? There’s been no report of anything that went on in the meeting, as far as I have been able to find out, from any of the print- or web-based Vaticanisti (including some people who love to goad the traditionalists, and so might have been expected to trumpet this kind of news). There’s only the rumors about this mysterious “motu proprio on the rite of the Mass”.
It may not be the blanket-permission-for-the-Traditional-Rite that most of the trads are hoping for, but something is going on. It was a little absurd to think that the Holy Father would disrupt the celebration of Holy Week and Triduum by releasing such a document, though.
I have the same question. When will we learn what happened at the April 7th meeting?
I would also reccomend The New Liturgical Movement for updates on the possible Motu Proprio.
Good stuff there.
In the blogsphere and in the news media the April 7th meeting was touted as being an “emergency meeting” (announced 2 weeks in advanced!). They has been no anouncement or press release on the discussions. Rome has consitantly and Historically moved slow. One only needs to look at the quote from a Vatican Official, “Another senior Vatican official said simply, It is not a theme that is yet mature.” I will propose that the wheels will move very slowly…not for a consensus but to find a face saving position for both sides. It seems as Catholics, we try to apply to The Holy See the fast food mentality that wants action now and on demand. I suppose we will hear very little until The Holy Father is ready to speak and the players are ready. I suspect some humility on “Bishop” Fellay’s part might aide in the healing process. Bendedict will not offer the right hand of fellowship if it keeps getting bit!
Mark writes: “I suspect some humility on ‘Bishop’ Fellay’s part might aide in the healing process. Bendedict [sic] will not offer the right hand of fellowship if it keeps getting bit!”
To what might you be referring, Mark? The next time Bishop Fellay approaches Rome with hubris will be the first time. As for The Holy Father, not knowing him personally I cannot say for sure what he’s going to do, but having heard, in person, from Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger (the two SSPX members who met with the Pope last August), I get the impression that what the Holy Father would *like to do* and what the bureaucracy around him will *let him do* are two totally different things.
But to your assertion that humility would help: is it hubris to simply ask for your birth-right? As members of the Church we have a RIGHT to the FULLNESS of the Catholic Faith and all of its ceremonies, and nobody has the right to force some adulterated liturgy based on Protestant “theology” down our collective throats. And lest you think that’s my opinion, re-read what Saint Paul had to say about it…
Brad, your birthright is whatever inheritance the Holy Catholic Church has in it’s possession. If the church chooses to supress certain rites and ceremonies that is her right to do so and your role is to follow this. Not only does the Church teach against private interpretation of the scripture but also private interpretation of the Magisterium.
I can’t imagine how the SSPX could choose Pius X as a patron as he would be such an unlikely patron for this organization.
If we could imagine for a moment Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre seeing Archbishop Giuseppe Sarto at the Second Vatican Council. We can guess that they probably would have made fast friends between themselves and they would reminisce about the glorious golden age of the great Roman Rite. They were both lovers of the Latin Mass and despite the Latin Mass’s own set of abuses (and there were some) they readily saw in it the summit of everything Catholic.
They may have been both bitterly dissapointed in the way the Council was going and may have been a bit shocked at the promulgation of the new mass of Paul VI later on. They may have both cried on each others shoulders.
Whatever the case may have been in this highly hypothetical scene, what is not viewed as hypothetical is that there always was a very great difference between between Marcel Lefebvre and Giuseppe Sarto – and it is this unique difference that makes Sarto (Pope St. Pius X) a Saint.
Sarto would have OBEYED!
As for St. Paul, He was talking about Doctrine not Discipline.
And yes he was holding them in obedience.
Pseudomodo: don’t forget that obedience is subject to Faith, that pastoral councils are not infallible, and neither are Popes when they are not speaking ex Cathedra. While the Church has the legislative right to simply make up a new liturgy and supplant an older one, they haven’t the moral right to do so, especially when that preceding liturgy was enshrined in a Papal Bull (Quo Primum) for all time.
Here’s another idea: instead of your ad hominem attacks, go back to the source. Listen to what Bishop Fellay and Father Franz Schmidberger have said in the last six months and tell me if you still think they are out of line.
“nobody has the right to force some adulterated liturgy based on Protestant “theology” down our collective throats.”
I’ve been to the mass in several parishes and I’ve never noticed anything Protestant about its theology: praying for the dead at the beginning of the mass, confessing the Nicean Creed (my father, who is Baptist, will not say “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins), celebrating the Eucharist, etc…
I don’t think Christ promised us a Church that would “shove something down our throats” either, but rather a Rock to guide us in wisdom and truth by the power of the Holy Spirit.
“Pseudomodo: don’t forget that obedience is subject to Faith, that pastoral councils are not infallible, and neither are Popes when they are not speaking ex Cathedra. While the Church has the legislative right to simply make up a new liturgy and supplant an older one, they haven’t the moral right to do so, especially when that preceding liturgy was enshrined in a Papal Bull (Quo Primum) for all time.”
Pastoral Council or not, VII was an Ecumenical Council and as such has authority (including the authority to interpret Quo Primum). Christ gave authority to the apostles and our successors, not to us as individuals, so that the Faith would have a Rock to stand on. Even non-ex cathedra statments from Peter’s successor demand the assent of the faithful. An approach to the Church which heeds only her infallible pronouncements is a minimalist approach.
Brad, How many more mistakes are you going to make? Strike Three YOU’RE OUT!!
Obedience is subject to AUTHORITY!
Popes are infallible even when not speaking INFALLIBLY!
A previous pope cannot tie the hands of succeding popes in the matters of LITURGY!
That should read:
Popes are infallible even when not speaking EX-CATHEDRA!
Popes are infallible even when not speaking INFALLIBLY
This is a metaphysical impossibility. Like: a bird is a duck even when it is not a duck.
I think what Pseudomodo means (or else what he is misinterpreting) is that a Pope need not use the explicit ex cathedra formula to speak infallibly. He speaks infallibly when binding the faithful to a belief by his Papal authority.
If he is not doing this, but is teaching the faithful, his statements are authoritative and therefore to be accepted but are not infallible. If he is makeing some informal comment, not teaching, it has the same weight as if anyone else said it… judge it by the holyness and education of the person.
The Pope certainly has the legislative authority to do whatever he feels like with the liturgy, and we have the resposibility to obay (unless something contradicts the natural moral order, like if some evil pope were to say we need to sacrifice babies on the alter or something). What his own responsibilities are regarding what changes he makes I will not venture an opinion on.
Oops, sorry Pseudomodo you posted that last one while I was writing mine.
Brad,
No matter what your opinion of the living pope please at least recognize that he has the God-given authority to teach and govern the Church that every past pope had. We are subject to that authority at the cost of our salvation.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Pseudomodo:
You need to re-read the definition of Infallibility as given in the Catholic Encyclopedia. To make a long story short, the Pope (or the Bishops in unanimity) must specifically intend and express that they are defining something to be binding on the whole Church as a matter of Faith or morals. The classic example is that if the Pope says that he wants bacon and eggs for breakfast that it’s not an infallible statement. Moreover, the Pope can be wrong on matters of Faith and Morals when not speaking ex Cathedra and there are cases in Church history when this was shown (usually the Pope in question changed his teaching, but occasionally it took definition from a subsequent Pope or Council).
In the case of the Second Vatican Council, the council fathers specifically defined the council as pastoral in nature. Furthermore, in the closing address of the council, Pope Paul VI stated that nothing extraordinary occurred, which is technical language to say that nothing in the documents of the council intended to invoke, nor did they enjoy the privilege of infallibility.
Thanks J.R.
Ball ONE!!
Blessed Pio Nono was simply clarifying the position that a Pope is infallible when he speaks excathedra and not simply as the president of a general council. Incidently while Pius IX favoured supreme authority (pseudo-ultramontanism which was feared by many), the dogma on papal infallibility came with 4 conditions (5 if you count canon 749:3)
This is a perfect example (IMHO) of the Holy Spirit’s action in the church in protecting the pope from error.
Brad, re Bishop Fellay: Since when is disobedience an act of humility?
Inocencio wrote: “No matter what your opinion of the living pope please at least recognize that he has the God-given authority to teach and govern the Church that every past pope had. We are subject to that authority at the cost of our salvation.”
That the Pope has the God-given authority to teach and govern the Church should be without question, and if I have given you cause to think I am questioning it then I apologize for not being clear. When Christ gave Pete (and his successors) the power of the keys that question has been answered, and the expression of that was most eloquently offered by Saint Augustine: “Roma locua, causa finita–Rome has spoken, the matter is finished.” If we reject that the Pope has the authority (and I would add “mandate”) to teach and govern the Church then become heretics.
However, as I mentioned earlier, obedience is always subject to the Faith. Clearly, if the Pope defines something ex Cathedra then it’s a no-brainer: it’s a matter of Faith and you have to accept it. But the genesis of this whole thread was a discussion about a prudential decision of a Pontiff: to bring out a new Rite of the Mass. We most certainly can disagree with the Pope on something like this, especially when we see the devastation in the Chruch that has come with it and all of the other “reforms” issued after Vatican II.
Bill912: I don’t recall suggesting that humility and disobedience were connected… that’s your assertion/opinion.
Brad,
Even when the pope does not speak ex Cathadra he still speaks as the final authority in governing the Church.
This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
UNAM SANCTAMBull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“When Christ gave Pete…” should have been “When Christ gave Peter…”
Apparently I’m fallible. 🙂
“nobody has the right to force some adulterated liturgy based on Protestant “theology” down our collective throats
Sounds like more than disagreement.
If I have misunderstood your post I apologize.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“The next time Bishop Fellay approaches Rome with Hubris will be the first time.” By refusing to be obedient to the Holy Father, he acts with hubris.
Brad you need to re-read Vatican Council I Pronounced by Pope Pius IX on July 18, 1870 Vatican Council I
Dogmatic Constitution “Pastor Aeternus,” Chapter IV
“On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff”
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian religion, for the glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks *ex cathedra*, i.e., [1] when exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, [2] by his supreme apostolic authority, [3] a doctrine of faith or morals [4] which must be held by the universal Church, enjoys, through the divine assistance, that infallibility promised to him in blessed Peter and with which the divine Redeemer wanted His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals; and therefore that the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church. “If anyone should presume to contradict this definition of ours – may God prevent this happening – anathema sit.”
The bracketed number are mine for illustrative purposes.
For an Ex-Cathedra, infallible statement, the Pope must be:
[1] intending to teach
[2] by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority
[3] a matter of Faith or morals
[4] to be held by the universal Church.
Brad, documents are not infallible. The POPE is infallible. He need not use any particular form of language and he need not bury a single line definition in 50 pages of curial fluff.
There have been some objections that a solomn definition pertains to some doctrine that must be believed, however the definition (if you read latin) pertains to doctrines that must be HELD (Tenenda) not just believed (Credenda).
So hold on!!
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
I have gotten the impression that the old Catholic Encyclopedia, and other documents from the era between the Vatican councils, sometimes overemphasize or even exaggerate how limited Papal infallibility is. I suspect this attitude was developed in reaction to the objections of Protestants and “Old Catholics” who misinterpreted the newly defined Papal infallibility to mean impeccability and that every word that comes out of the Pope’s mouth is infallible.
The truth is that the actual definition of infallibility is rather broad, and the whole idea of infallibility is preceded by the idea that the Magisterium teaches with the authority of Christ, even when not infallible.
I suspect this minimalist attitude towards Church authority of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is in part what lead to the massive dissent, eventually even regarding infallibility itself, of the latter 20th century. It also facilitates the dissent of “ultraorthodox” groups like SSPX.
Interested,
“The pope is always infallible and so we always owe him blind obedience.”
This is the main argument from the page you quoted. No one is saying that is why we are subject to the pope.
Read UNAM SANCTAM.
This article quotes heavily from two essays, which have recently been jointly republished under the title, Pope or Church?
The same as saying father or mother?
What a silly argument to act like a brother (SSPX) who is telling the younger brothers “that dad (pope) has no authority only mom (Church) does, and this is what mom says…trust me I know.”
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
We most certainly can disagree with the Pope on something like this, especially when we see the devastation in the Chruch that has come with it and all of the other “reforms” issued after Vatican II.
But disagreeing with something does not give you grounds to disobey.
“For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of the liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her present if things are that way? I must say quite openly, that I don’t understand why so many of my episcopal brethren have to a great extent submitted to this rule of intolerance, which for no apparent reason is opposed to making the necessary inner reconciliations within the Church.”
Ratzinger – God and the World p416
You know what traditionalists want, besides the fullness of Catholic teaching and to worship as so many saints have? They want to be accepted as Catholics, not regarded as lepers, or with a sneering suspicion that they are the foreigners who must be watched. They want to not be treated as second class, ghetto-ized Catholics who must be eliminated as expeditiously as possible.
Michael,
They want to be accepted as Catholics, not regarded as lepers, or with a sneering suspicion that they are the foreigners who must be watched.
That is what I also want, Michael, not to be treated that way by any Catholic while I am being called a “neo-Catholic” and/or a “modernist”.
Let us pray for Pope Benedict XVI to guide us faithfully and boldly.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“Bishop” Fellay has consistantly spoken out of bothsides of his mouth. You only need to go back and look at SSPX newsletter trashing Then Cardinal Ratzinger as a modernest. Every day that the media said something good or offered the possibility of reconcilliation, Bishop Fellay attacked. The FSSP wqas called traitors to tradition and sell outs. Maybe we should remind the Holy Father and ourselves that This “Bishop is excommunicated and his consecration was an act of disobedience. Should the word Bishop even be used.
In Ireland we have Catholic Priests giving communion to Protestants but traditionalists are still the bad guys!
Fr Iggy O’Donovan, said last night it was “the most meaningful Eucharist I ever celebrated”.
The Easter Sunday morning Mass took place at the Augustinian priory in Drogheda, Co Louth, which is in both the Catholic and Church of Ireland dioceses of Armagh.
Fr O’Donovan invited Rev Michael Graham, rector at St Peter’s Church in Drogheda, to take part in the concelebrated Mass with him, the Augustinian prior Fr Richard Goode and Fr Noel Hession.
As for the theology involved, he said he shared “the Eucharist every day with Roman Catholics whose theology I do not share”. Besides, Rev Graham “has a very profound understanding of the Eucharist”, he said.
Jim Roche,
Both are wrong and that is the point.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“In Ireland we have Catholic Priests giving communion to Protestants but traditionalists are still the bad guys!”
Not here. Innocencio is right.
The fact that a person can err in one direction doesn’t mean there is no error in the other direction.
Don’t get me wrong…
Jew-hating sedevacantists are wrong, but have little power or influence in the Church, and even that is diminishing.
New-agey, feel-good liberal relativism is a much greater danger to souls at this point in Church history, and just about everyone here knows that.
God save his Church from priests like the one in your post!!
But there will be no decrees of excommunication in this case. The newspapers think it’s wonderful and the public who have been systematical deprived of Catholic teaching since Vatican II won’t know enough to object.
The liberals will be delighted. The conservatives will as I am sadly discovering do nothing in the belief that the Holy Ghost will fix everything without their input.
The traditionalists will object and take the abuse as usual.
The Conseravtives are the worst. A waste of space. At least the liberals work for what they believe in.
“Reform has never been achieved by disobedience”
More good (educational) listening on the Deposit of Faith and our Catholic Tradition and Patrimony:
http://www.lab29.com/media/audio/sermons/20051002_CatholicTraditionAndPatrimony.mp3
So, Jim, you prefer the dissenting priest to us “conservatives”? You actually prefer positive damage and lost souls to trusting the Holy Ghost?
What should we do, Jim? Complain? Okay, check… done that. Does that make me a Traditionalist, now?
Write our Bishop? Done that.
Pray? Check.
Go into schism? Not on your life. Those who choose that road (perhaps out of frustration) do more harm than good. Disobedience is disobedience.
It does make me wonder if perhaps many have lost faith that the Holy Spirit IS at the helm of the Church. Do we abandon ship every time a wave breaks over the gunwhales?
Oh, well, I’ve done that analogy to death before.
Tim J: Disobedience doesn’t make one a schismatic: that requires a formal repudiation of the Pope’s/Church’s authority to teach and govern. There are some in the traditionalist camp which would fall under the latter definition, but they are neither the majority nor do they speak for the majority.
Contrawise, blind obedience is a vice, not a virtue. Christ Himself warned that others would come and claim to teach in His Name, whose goal was to scatter the sheep rather than to lead and feed them.
As always, Saint Thomas Aquinas is the best reference for getting at the correct definition of moral terms, but that’s only a start. It’s far easier to read and understand the gospels than it is to live them (thanks Adam!). But it’s precisely this struggle which will earn us sanctity in the next life… as long as we’re oriented in the right direction.
I agree with everything you said.
Disobeying a direct order of the Pope constitutes “a formal repudiation of the Pope’s/Church’s authority to teach and govern”.
I would consider obedience to a schismatic Bishop to be “blind”, just as obedience to a dissenting pro-gay Bishop would be, and for the same reason.
Tim J: Disobedience and schism are two different things, and disobeying the Pope doesn’t, of itself, constitute a repudiation of his authority.
Let me ask you this: if the Pope suggests, by words and actions, that we can be saved in a church other than the Catholic Church, what would you do: follow him into error or disobey and, by your definition, fall into schism? Kind of a difficult situation, isn’t it? Yet, what else can you call it when a Supreme Pontiff does things like kiss the Koran, hold “prayer meetings” of all the world’s religions in which the implication is that all religions are equal (and if this is not the case, please cite where the Pope or his appointed delegate has clearly reminded us Catholics that while it “looked” like a prayer meeting of equals, that it wasn’t because salvation can only be found in the Catholic Church and that all who reject that teaching are anathema, just as the Church has always taught!), or publishes a document on religious liberty implying that one can be saved outside the Catholic Church?
A Pope can sin; a Pope can teach error (though not infallibly); and a Pope can go to hell. In such cases, we must be obedient to the Catholic Faith even if that means being disobedient to the Pope who is being disloyal to that same Faith. If we didn’t have the patrimony of the teachings of the Church Fathers on which to fall back, or the dogmatic teachings of the previous councils and Popes, then you might have cause to accuse traditionalists of hubris and private interpretation. We are, however, merely reminding you all (and anyone in the hierarchy who will listen) what the Church’s teaching is, and wondering aloud why the Church seems to be disavowing that legacy of doctrine.
It’s not like Truth can change…
Brad, you seem to reject the authority of the ordinary Magisterium. That is not a Catholic thing to do. Also, the Koran kissing and the Assisi conferences certainly did not imply that all religions are equal since that clearly is not what the Pope and most if not all the religious leaders who participated in it believed.
J.R.: the problem with saying what the Pope does or doesn’t believe when he makes actions which suggest something contrary to the Faith is a problem which requires clarification. About which is the Pope more certain: matters of Faith and Morals or of internal issues within the Church? It took only two days for Pope John Paul II to issue a Motu Proprio after the late Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops (citing a multiplicity of Canon Laws allowing him to do so without a Papal mandate, I might add) but yet we have not seen so much as an informal memo from the Holy See reaffirming Church teaching in instances where where those teachings were seemingly contradicted.
By the way, when the topic of Infallibility was addressed by the first Vatican Council, the topic infallibility of the ordinary magisterium was not defined.
I believe that what I Divine Savior Said that is giving to St. Peter his binding authority spans time was not just applicable to the fashion of the day, but for all times. Keeping in mind my thoughts, please review “Quo Primum” below in regard to what was called the Apostolic Mass before council of Trent or called this day Tridentine Mass after the council. The church as we know has identifiable marks which are: One, holy, Apostolic, Catholic, i.e., Universal- She is not only ever where but is the same through out time in her binding authority. Please read this below with the calling on
Our lady – the living Ark of the promise:
PIUS: BISHOP OF ROME
Servant of the Servants of God
FOR AN EVERLASTING MEMORIAL
Upon our elevation to the Apostolic throne We gladly turned Our mind and energies, and directed all Our thoughts, to the matter of preserving incorrupt the public worship of the Church; and We have striven, with God’s help, by every means in Our power to achieve that purpose.
Whereas amongst other decrees of the Holy Council of Trent We were charged with revision and re-issue of the sacred books, to wit the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary; and whereas We have with God’s consent published a Catechism for the instruction of the faithful, and thoroughly revised the Breviary for the due performance of the Divine Office, We next, in order that Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony, as is right and proper (considering that it is altogether fitting that there should be in the Church only one appropriate manner of Psalmody and one sole rite of celebrating Mass), deemed it necessary to give Our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, namely the re-editing of the Missal with the least possible delay.
We resolved accordingly to delegate this task to a select committee of scholars; and they, having at every stage of their work and with the utmost care collated the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and reliable (original or amended) codices from elsewhere, and having also consulted the writing of ancient and approved authors who have bequeathed to us records relating to the said sacred rites, thus restored the Missal itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this production had been subjected to close scrutiny and further amended We, after mature consideration, ordered that the final result be forthwith printed and published in Rome, so that all may enjoy the fruits of this labor: that priests may know what prayers to use, and what rites and ceremonies they are to use henceforward in the celebration of Masses.
Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply moreover even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever; saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over two hundred years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See’s institution and confirmation of the church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than two hundred years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid. Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to this rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered there in.
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or, possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, howsoever ancient, which they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
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.
Consequently it is Our will, and by the same authority We decree, that one month after publication of this Our Constitution and Missal, priests of the Roman Curia shall be obliged to sing or to read the Mass in accordance therewith; others south of the Alps, after three months; those who live beyond the Alps, after six months or as soon as the Missal becomes available for purchase.
Furthermore, in order that the said Missal may be preserved incorrupt and kept free from defects and errors, the penalty for nonobservance in the case of all printers resident in territory directly or indirectly subject to Ourselves and the Holy Roman Church shall be forfeiture of their books and a fine of 100 gold ducats payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury. In the case of those resident in other parts of the world it shall be excommunication latae sententiae and all other penalties at Our discretion; and by Our Apostolic authority and the tenor of these presents. We also decree that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to take delivery of such books without Our approval and consent, or without express permission of the Apostolic Commissary in the said parts appointed by us for that purpose. Each of the said printers must receive from the aforementioned Commissary a standard Missal to serve as an exemplar for subsequent copies, which, when made, must be compared with the exemplar and agree faithfully therewith, varying in no wise from the first impression printed in Rome.
But, since it would be difficult for this present Constitution to be transmitted to all parts of the world and to come to the notice of all concerned simultaneously, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, at those of the Apostolic Chancery, and at the end of the Campo de’Fiori; moreover We direct that printed copies of the same, signed by a notary public and authenticated with the seal of an ecclesiastical dignitary, shall possess the same unqualified and indubitable validity everywhere and in every country that would attend the display there of Our present text. 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.
Given at Saint Peter’s, Rome, in the year of Our Lord’s Incarnation one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourteenth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.
Jim Roche,
“But there will be no decrees of excommunication in this case. The newspapers think it’s wonderful and the public who have been systematical deprived of Catholic teaching since Vatican II won’t know enough to object.”
There might not be excommunications but
someone knew enough to object and not just complain.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J