It occurs to me, musically speaking, this could mean all Latin texts along with the banning of the TLM will now from hence-forth, or soon thereafter, be also banned and only vernacular allowed... or am I missing something? Perhaps that is a loop hole at the present moment?
Exactly my thinking... theoretical versus reality. I once tried to teach Mass VIII gloria to a parish where I was the DoM and all hell broke loose in the entire diocese and Latin was banned by the bishop not long thereafter.The NO in Latin has always been licit, even if non-existent
You have a copy of that?
Archbishop Salvatore Cordiloeone of San Francisco told CNA July 16 that “The Mass is a miracle in any form: Christ comes to us in the flesh under the appearance of Bread and Wine. Unity under Christ is what matters. Therefore the Traditional Latin Mass will continue to be available here in the Archdiocese of San Francisco and provided in response to the legitimate needs and desires of the faithful.”
Bishop Edward Scharfenberger of Albany wrote that “With respect to the celebration of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reforms of 1970, I wish to reiterate the great pastoral and spiritual good that has been experienced by those who have been and who are engaged in this form of the Liturgy. I would also like to acknowledge the many valuable contributions made to the life of the Church through such celebrations.”
The Diocese of Arlington told CNA that all parishes that had planned on offering Masses in the Extraordinary Form would be able to do so.
I hate feeling like certain bishops thoroughly enjoy having new found power to hold over people's heads... just for the fun of it.Part of the challenge of the two manners of celebrating the Mass, pre-Vatican II and the following, is how each following either rejects or mocks the other. Both are the Mass.
.
I hear from the folks who follow the older celebration ore and they often reject the Council. If you reject one or the other, you reject Jesus. The Mass is dictate by the Magisterium and not by individual opinions.
Therefore no one, whosoever he be, is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition; nor is he allowed temerariously to act against it.
Accordingly, should anyone presume to commit such an act, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Did the Pope Intend to Bind His Successors from Changing the Tridentine Mass?
...
The second is the confusion about the binding force of Quo Primum. That is, whom did the Pope intend to bind? Clearly, from the text itself, we see that he intended to do exactly what we would expect (with a proper understanding of papal authority and the disciplinary character of liturgical law). That is, with some exceptions, he intended to bind the Church to his liturgical policy until such time as it was changed by competent (i.e., papal) authority, and therefore "in perpetuity" if it was never changed.
First of all, for the sake of argument, let us assume that it was something merely disciplinary. It would not follow logically, therefore, that the creation of the Novus Ordo was permissible. Because the Church's doctrine regarding liturgy is formulated in many pronouncements-----infallible pronouncements-----before Quo Primum was ever issued.
It was the Council of Trent that solemnly declared anathema-----that is, it is a heresy-----to say that any pastor in the Church, whosoever he may be, has the power to change the traditional rite into a new rite. This is found in Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:"
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."
For six hundred years, the Popes made a solemn profession at their Coronation, a public and solemn profession, that they did not have the power to change the liturgy. Then they invoked the wrath of God upon themselves if they should dare to change it or allow anyone to change it.
...Thus, regardless of Quo Primum, it had been a well established teaching of the Catholic Faith that the Roman rite cannot be trashed and replaced with a new rite. To do so is contrary to the law of God as defined by the infallible Magisterium of the Church.
He declared solemnly and definitively that Quo Primum cannot ever be revoked or modified.
Why did he do this? Because it is an application of the Divine Law as defined by the Church regarding the Roman Rite specifically, the Roman Church specifically.
So it is not merely disciplinary, it is a disciplinary decree rooted in the doctrine of the faith. There are other legal formulations used in other decrees saying "henceforth in perpetuity" but we are not dealing with something so simple as this. We are dealing with a very explicit pronouncement wherein he says, "by our Apostolic authority . . . we order and declare . . . that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law."
However, even if the Pope had never issued Quo Primum, the doctrine of the Church had been previously defined. The proper liturgy of the Roman Church is the Roman Rite. This is the faith. This is the teaching of the Church. So even if Quo Primum never existed and even if Pope Pius V had not codified the Missal, Catholics would still be bound their customary traditional rites, the so-called Tridentine Rite, and other similar variations of the same. This is the doctrine of the faith and it can never change.
Prove me wrong. Pius V had no more power to bind Francis than Francis would have to bind Pius V.
Bye bye to reconciliation with the Society
Quo Primum said
he Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper – for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass
Post-conciliar popes are guardians of that revised tradition, not a tradition set in stone and not an unrevised, pre-conciliar tradition. [...]
...Church's Vatican II ethos...
"With the proper permissions, you may celebrate the TLM, except that there are no locations at which it may be licitly celebrated."
Interesting that he's ensuring that faithful Catholics who just happen to be at TLM have to join with the rest of the Catholics in the NO, of which less than 1/3 even believe in the real presence... but the TLM is the issue...
Get real.
Some of the wording of this document and the internal contradictions in it are quite confusing.
The Great Mistake of Paul VI was trying to condense 100+ years of liturgical reform into five, and not allowing things to grow organically. But I suppose this was the optimism of The Atomic Age.
It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.
Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.”
until any future pope decides to reverse this motu proprio, yes?
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.