Replies

It is interesting to hear this canard of "discipline of the Church" used in regards to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A discipline is easily seen in the practice of saying the Rosary, genuflecting, singing vespers, or fasting on vigils of holy days. But the Mass? I have to wonder if that goes too far. It's a sacrament, which, like the other 6, has three component parts. Do disciplines all have three component parts? No, huh?

Well, this thought was on my mind last night when I heard a radio broadcast in which a self-proclaimed expert on the "supernatural" (he was actually talking about preternaturral) pronounced his highly developed opinion that transubstantiation in the Catholic Mass is a form of cultism (he was apparently trying to say gnosticism). He threw it into a basket in common with such things as witch's spells, alchemy, necromancy, and even "ufology," because it involves the supposed transformation of one kind of thing into another by way of spoken words. In saner times the radio station would be in trouble for broadcasting blasphemous calumnies against the Church. As it is, this kind of thing happens regularly. In fact, our local Roger Cardinal Mahony has snuggled up to just such concepts in his speeches and writings. Several years back, he encouraged the flock to abandon our association of the actions of the priest at Mass with any notions of magic. We are just having a casual celebration, you know.

The Mass as codified in the 1570 missal was not a new concoction like the Novus Ordo was (and continues to be as it continues to morph all over the place). What Pope St. Pius V did was to carry out the directives of the long fought, infallible council of Trent (which took over 10 years and many gatherings of the bishops from all over the West before the age of machines), to put down into one book the tradition of Apostolic origin, the Mass that Jesus taught to the Apostles, and that St. Peter took to Rome. As it says very plainly in Quo Primum, any pastor of the Church (and the Pope is a pastor) who would dare to change what is contained in this missal will be subject to the wrath of St. Peter and St. Paul. Does that sound like it's just another "discipline?"

You could chime in that Peter and Paul are no longer around to bully the pope. We ought to regard those words a little more carefully. If they were to come back, most Christians might not recognize them. After all, what Protestant believes that St. Peter was the first pope, or that St. Paul was a Catholic bishop? Don't forget who it was that weilded a sword in the Garden of Olives, or who it was that ran a campaign of persecution against Christians before a providential event on the road to Damascus. Neither one was ignorant of the proper governance of the Church. They came from a time when Roman law ruled the land.

"It is interesting to hear this canard of "discipline of the Church" used in regards to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A discipline is easily seen in the practice of saying the Rosary, genuflecting, singing vespers, or fasting on vigils of holy days. But the Mass? I have to wonder if that goes too far. It's a sacrament, which, like the other 6, has three component parts. Do disciplines all have three component parts? No, huh?"

You are making an elementary error in confusing the sacrament which is Holy Communion from the ceremonies by which it is confected. The sacrament is NOT the Mass. It is that which is confected at the Mass. The rites for the administration of the sacraments in the west have changed quite dramatically in some cases over the centuries. I am not even referring to the post Vatican II reforms. The rubrics of the mass have always been changeable, and have in fact been modified many many times.

"Well, this thought was on my mind last night when I heard a radio broadcast in which a self-proclaimed expert on the "supernatural" (he was actually talking about preternaturral) pronounced his highly developed opinion that transubstantiation in the Catholic Mass is a form of cultism (he was apparently trying to say gnosticism). He threw it into a basket in common with such things as witch's spells, alchemy, necromancy, and even "ufology," because it involves the supposed transformation of one kind of thing into another by way of spoken words. In saner times the radio station would be in trouble for broadcasting blasphemous calumnies against the Church. As it is, this kind of thing happens regularly. In fact, our local Roger Cardinal Mahony has snuggled up to just such concepts in his speeches and writings. Several years back, he encouraged the flock to abandon our association of the actions of the priest at Mass with any notions of magic. We are just having a casual celebration, you know."

Mahoney is not on my favorite cardinal list. But I do not see the relavence of this to the issue at hand.

"The Mass as codified in the 1570 missal was not a new concoction like the Novus Ordo was (and continues to be as it continues to morph all over the place). What Pope St. Pius V did was to carry out the directives of the long fought, infallible council of Trent (which took over 10 years and many gatherings of the bishops from all over the West before the age of machines), to put down into one book the tradition of Apostolic origin, the Mass that Jesus taught to the Apostles, and that St. Peter took to Rome. As it says very plainly in Quo Primum, any pastor of the Church (and the Pope is a pastor) who would dare to change what is contained in this missal will be subject to the wrath of St. Peter and St. Paul. Does that sound like it's just another "discipline?"

From your writing I must conclude that you are woefully ignorant of the history of the development of the western liturgy. After the 1st sentence in the preceding cited paragraph everything you wrote was pretty much wrong. St. Pius V did NOT do anything other than carry out the order of the council to find a suitable missal to replace various usages which had allowed errors to creep into them. The Venerable pontiff decided to adopt the rite of the city of Rome with some minor modifications. This missal was NOT handed down by Jesus Christ to the apostles. Nor was it used by the apostolic church. The Canon of the Pian Missal is universally dated to the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great. If what you wrote had any validity then all other rites would of course be invalid. But in fact the rite of the Roman Church was hardly the most venerable in the west. And almost all of the Eastern Liturgies are older than any of the extant rites of the west. Further the Pontiff did not seek to suppress the older liturgies. Those with more than 2 centuries of use were allowed. The Roman Rite of 1962 would not be recognizable to Christians of the 1st several centuries in Rome who more often than not celebrated Mass in Greek and not Latin. Indeed the liturgy of 1962 would not even be all that recognizeable to those who celebrated using the 1570 missal. While I concur strongly that the Novus Ordo is manifestly inferior to that which it was intended to replace, thats not the same thing as saying its unlawful or illicit. The Tridentine Rite in my opinion was never lawfully suppressed. But thats not the same thing as saying the Pope can not suppress it if he chose to do so. Canon Law is clear in stating that the Roman Pontiff is the Supreme Authority and Judge in the Church.

"Can. 331 The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power...
ß3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff."

Those who deny the authority of the pope are at the least guilty of schism.

"Can. 1364 ß1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 ß1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 ß1, nn. 1, 2 and 3."

Regarding the curse at the end of the Bull QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE (July 14th 1570); that sort of language was common in most documents issued by the Apostolic See during that era.

"You could chime in that Peter and Paul are no longer around to bully the pope. We ought to regard those words a little more carefully. If they were to come back, most Christians might not recognize them. After all, what Protestant believes that St. Peter was the first pope, or that St. Paul was a Catholic bishop? Don't forget who it was that weilded a sword in the Garden of Olives, or who it was that ran a campaign of persecution against Christians before a providential event on the road to Damascus. Neither one was ignorant of the proper governance of the Church. They came from a time when Roman law ruled the land."

Peter did not bully the Pope. He WAS the pope. You sound like you think St. Peter is still governing the Church. He is not. His successor +Benedictus XVI reigns. The rest of what you wrote has no bearing on the subject that I can discern.

A detailed discussion of the history of the of the Tridentine reforms is far beyond the scope of a post in this forum. But I would refer you to a few sites that may give you a little more background.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/civitas.dei/Mass_of_St_Pius_V.pdf

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/civitas.dei/cavendish.htm