The Mass Perpetually?

[qfnol31]

Pope St. Pius V said that the Tridentine Mass would be the Mass perpetually. Most people say that for that reason, the Novus Ordo Missae cannot exist today.

So what about the Jesuits who were suspended perpetually? [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14096a.htm"]NewAdvent on Jesuit Suspension[/url].

I have a feeling this word "perpetually" is taken out of context too often.

Just something that my advisor taught me this week.

[Donna]

Point taken re: the Jesuits.

In [i]Quo Primum[/i], it is the indult which is perpetual - "that they may be able [b]lawfully[/b]" to say this Mass (missal of St. Pius V), in any Church, without scruple of conscience or penalties of any kind. And yes, "this" Mass to which the indult speaks of is the "Tridentine".

[Apotheoun]

The authority that gives an indult can revoke an indult. No Pope can bind his successors on disciplinary matters, and quite clearly, the issuance of liturgical books is a disciplinary matter. So the real question to be asked on this topic is whether or not Pope Paul VI intended to revoke the indult of Pope St. Pius V, and the answer to this question can be found by looking at the actions of the reigning pontiff. Because Pope John Paul II has issued an indult permitting, under various conditions, the celebration of the 1962 Roman Missal, it is clear that he believes that Paul VI has abrogated St. Pius V's indult given in "Quo Primum," and since the Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church, it follows that the reigning Pope must be obeyed.

[Donna]

That liturgical book was tied to the Council of Trent, with its decrees in Council and Catechism re: the doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and particularily its canon and consecration.

If the Mass according to the Missal of St. Pius V really was abrogated, and only the indult of Pope John Paul II stands, why did Msgr. Perl of the [i]Ecclesia Dei Commission [/i]state that one can fulfill their Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Donna' date='Sep 7 2004, 12:26 AM'] That liturgical book was tied to the Council of Trent, with its decrees in Council and Catechism re: the doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and particularily its canon and consecration.

If the Mass according to the Missal of St. Pius V really was abrogated, and only the indult of Pope John Paul II stands, why did Msgr. Perl of the [i]Ecclesia Dei Commission [/i]state that one can fulfill their Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass? [/quote]
Msgr. Perl is not the Magisterium, but regardless, you have clearly misunderstood what he has said, for he is not saying that one can satisfy, on a regular basis, his obligation to attend Mass by going to an SSPX chapel except under certain grave and extraordinary circumstances. When this is done (in the limited cases in which it is applicable) the indult of Pope John Paul II is what makes it possible, not the abrogated indult of Pius V. Moreover, the Council of Trent issued no liturgical books; instead, it, like Vatican 2, ordered the reform of the liturgical books, and nothing more. One is not permitted, on a regular basis, to attend SSPX chapels and remain in good standing in the Church. Such attendance, on a regular basis and without grave reasons, could be construed as adherence to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre which entails automatic excommunication. What you have done in your post is to take something that is only acceptable in extraordinary and grave situations, and have turned it into a absolute permission to attend schismatic services on a regular basis. Such a blanket acceptance of attendance at SSPX chapels involves the same type of error that an Eastern Catholic makes when he thinks that he can attend schismatic celebrations offered by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Neither practice is acceptable as a norm. As Msrg. Perl said in his letter, "While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended [i]a divinis[/i], that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no 'lay members' of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them. While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute 'formal adherence to the schism', such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in 'A Rome and Econe Handbook' which states in response to question 14 that 'the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass,and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.' It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X." [Letter of Msgr. Perl, section b]

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Donna' date='Sep 7 2004, 02:26 AM'] If the Mass according to the Missal of St. Pius V really was abrogated, and only the indult of Pope John Paul II stands, why did Msgr. Perl of the [i]Ecclesia Dei Commission [/i]state that one can fulfill their Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass? [/quote]
[color=red][Edited by dUSt: Criticism of current magisterium.][/color]

[IanuaCaeli]

Didn't Paul VI say that he was just giving another option that he didn't abrogate the old Mass. This is what I have read. He said he was just giving an option. Also, if there is no document abrogating something, it is not abrogated by default. Even the new Canon Law had to abrogate the old. If the old Mass wasn't abrogated, then it isn't abrogated by default. The Indult today applies to public Masses, not private ones. Any priest can say the old Mass privately. This is what I have read and been told by faithful Catholics and the two orthodox priests I know who are both Diocesan priests and they say the normal Mass.

[qfnol31]

I believe that the fact that the new GIRM is the Novus Ordo Missae, and has been approved by the Pope implies that it is the Mass of choice.

[Apotheoun]

The Ordo Missae of Paul VI is the universal norm for celebrating Mass in the Roman Rite, but Pope John Paul II has given an indult that permits the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal.

[Donna]

First of all, are people aware of the differences in the 1962 and current Missals? Also, terminology (I was confused for a long time with all the names: Missal or Mass of St. Pius V, Latin Mass, Tridentine Mass, Roman Mass, Old Mass, 1962 Missal - those are most of the names referring to the same thing). It's good to look at them side by side to see what's been retained or not. Also, for those who don't know, the entire canon of the old Mass, save for the beginnings of certain phrases (or paragraphs, so to speak) is whispered or said silently.

(To aid in making sense, I follow this post with the 1962 consecration posted. But, it is the English translation; the Mass is spoken/prayed in Latin).
___________________________________________________________________


Apotheoun,

I understand what you say re: Trent/Vat. II not issuing liturgical books, but the reform. However, Trent issued anathemas against those attacking the (old) Mass:

[i]Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the Mass contains errors, and should therefore be abrogated: let him be anathema.

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned, or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only, or that the water should not be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.[/i]

(-[i]Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma[/i], p. 292)


In quoting the above I refer only to point out that [i]specifics of that Mass [/i]are in the canons of an infallible Council. No disciplinary matter in those canons is treated with [i]anathema sit[/i]. This is clearly not the case with any other Latin Rite Mass that I have heard of, tho my knowledge is admittedly limited.

Likewise, in the Trent Catechism is specifically, line by line, explained why some of the words for the consecration of the wine are [b]not[/b] taken verbatim but rather conjoined from various Gospels in Sacred Scripture, yet are held firmly to be of Sacred Tradition.


No, Msgr. Perl isn't the magisterium, but we both quote him:

[i]Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:
"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."
His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:
"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."
His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection at a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:
"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified." [/i]

(excerpt, 2002, Letter of Msgr. Perl- can be found at www.unavoce.org/).


I hope we can continue to discuss this. And, it would help me, when you answer in depth, if you would space your reply into paragraphs.
___________________________________________________________________


[i](The + sign indicates the priests makes the sign of the cross; the words in red are the necessary form to effect the sacrament.)[/i]

[b]Consecration of the Host[/b]

Who, the day before He suffered , took bread into His Holy and venerable hands, and having lifted up His eyes to heaven, to Thee, God, His Almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, blessed it +, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take and eat ye all of this:

[color=red]For this is My Body.[/color]

Taking also into His holy and venerable hands this goodly chalice, again giving thanks to Thee, He blessed it +, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take and drink ye all of this:

[color=red]For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the Mystery of Faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.[/color]
As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of me.