The question no Catholic can answer me, would you like to try?
It is as clear as crystal that the Catholic Church is disintegrating from within ever since Vatican II. You can see these two videos for reference: My Fellow Catholics and Catholic Church Statistics 2014
As a quick recap, in 1969 Pope Paul VI instituted the new Rite of Mass or the Novus Ordo as it is known in the Church. By the end of 1970 Priests, Nuns and every other religious were leaving their vocation in droves. The laity stopped going to Mass, this is what the “Crisis In the Church” refers to. It is so bad that in the US, we now, in 2015, have less Churches than in 1965.
So why did changing the Rite Of Mass have such a profoundly negative effect? Because of this change, the world was tossed into chaos!
On July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI gave his motu propio SUMMORUM POTIFICUM in which Pope Benedict XVI clearly states that the Traditional Latin Mass “was never officially abrogated”.
SO HERE IS THE QUESTION: If for 400 years, the Traditional Latin Mass was binding on all of the Roman Rite Catholics, that if you missed Mass on a Sunday, it was considered a Mortal Sin. And according to Pope Benedict XVI the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated, how is it that every Roman Catholic is not still bound, under the pains of Mortal Sin, to attend the Traditional Latin Mass every Sunday?
What His Holiness Benedict XVI said is that the Latin Mass is still a valid and licit Rite to attend. Both the Extraordinary Form and the Novus Ordo are both valid and licit Masses to attend. Therefore, the act of missing Mass by one’s deliberate doing (mortal sin) is not determined by whether he attends the Novus Ordo or the Extraordinary Forms. Hope this helps, my friend!
The Novus Ordo (New Order) is not a valid latin rite of the mass per Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 13 reads, “if anyone was to say that the traditionally handed-down rites, used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, can be held in the distain, or be shortened, or be changed into new ones, of whomsoever of the pastors of the churches, may he be cursed.”
Dear Joao,
You are mistaken that all Latin Catholics were required to attend Masses celebrated according to the Missal of Pius V for 400 years. The obligation was to attend Mass, but there were different forms of celebration, including the Ambrosian Rite and the Dominican Rite.
Saying that the Missal of Pius V was never abrogated simply means that it is still legitimate to use it. It does not mean that one was or is obliged to attend Masses celebrated according to this particular form.
The obligation to attend Mass is a separate question than whether form of celebration, such as the Missal of Pius V, is to be used in a particular case.
Just because Catholic X is obliged to attend Mass and Priest Y is required to celebrate according to rite Z, it does not follow that Catholic X is required to attend Mass celebrated according to rite Z.
Thus an ordinary Catholic travelling to Milan could fulfill his Sunday obligation by attending an Ambrosian rite Mass, even if he ordinarily attended a parish where the Missal of St. Pius V was used.
Further, the current Code of Canon Law expressly guarantees the right of the faithful to fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Mass celebrated according to *any* Catholic rite.
Thus, even if there had previously been an obligation of the type you posit, it does not exist in current law.
The appeal to the 400 year history of the Missal of Pius V also does not prove anything. One could flip the question on its head by pointing to the 1500 years before this Missal’s use was generally mandated in the West. It is the status of the law (which we have already covered), not the time that a Missal has been in use, that is relevant to what the rights and obligations of the faithful are.
I hope this helps!
**************************************************************************************************************************
I am not sure what you mean by “Latin Catholics”, that is a non-specific designation, I am referring to Latin Rite Catholics and I am going to assume you mean the same but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Here is the quote from Pope St. Pius V’s Apostolic Constitution, Quo Primum in 1570: “All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
http://www.latinritemass.org/quo-primum/
The document is as clear as can be, every Roman “Latin” Rite Catholic was/is bound to that Mass/Missal. You are correct that there are other Rites that are still in effect but only those that at the time Quo Primum was published had to be older than 200 years were allowed to be kept if that Rite wished.
*******************************************************************************************************************
According to Pope Benedict XVI, in his Apostolic Letter, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, he states the following: “As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.” The words “juridically abrogated” is legal language which is used when dealing with laws and rights, the word “abrogated” means to repeal or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement).
Of Course it means that every Roman Rite Catholic is still bound to attend Mass every Sunday in the Missal/Mass of Pope St. Pius V! If the Traditional Latin Mass was never canceled, repealed or done away with, then every single item that Pope bound to the faithful is still binding! And you can read Missale Romanum a thousand times and you WILL NOT find anywhere in that document where Pope Paul VI canceled/repealed the Mass/Missal of Pope St. Pius V!
The implication, that you present is that both Missals/Masses are still valid and binding on the Faithful, if that is the case, are we supposed to attend two different Masses every Sunday?
*******************************************************************************************************************
These are secondary questions that can only be answered once the first question is answered.
*******************************************************************************************************************
This only raises a bigger question because if the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated, then the Catechism is in direct opposition to Pope Pius V where he specifically states:
“This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.
All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading 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. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.”
*******************************************************************************************************************
Jimmy, whether it is 400 years old or 400 seconds is irrelevant to me! What I care about is the words of our Blessed Lord says in the Gospel Of St. Matthew (18-18), “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” I take what our Lord says very seriously, if Pope Pius V was a legitimate Pope and he bound the Faithful to that Mass/Missal then I fully expect our Lord Jesus to keep His word. If on the other hand another Pope has canceled, repealed or abrogated that Mass/Missal, then I fully expect that our Blessed Lord Jesus will also keep His word. All I want is someone to show me where I, as a Roman (Latin) Rite Catholic am no longer bound to the Traditional Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V!
Joao–
Thank you for the response, but you are misreading Quo Primum. The central problem is that you keep asserting that this document bound *the faithful* to hear the Mass celebrated according to a particular Missal.
This is *not true.* If you review the text of Quo Primum, you will see that the document consistently refers to either *institutions* (parishes, religious houses, etc.) or *celebrants* (cardinals, patriarchs, bishops, priests, etc.) being required to use the Missal of Pius V–unless they are permitted to use a form of Mass that is at least 200 years old (i.e., pre-1370).
The document thus required that–excepting where the 200-year-old forms of Mass were in use–every *parish church* (etc.) was required to have Mass said according to the new Missal and every *priest* (etc.) was required to say Mass using the new Missal.
There is *nothing* here about the faithful being required to hear Mass said a particular way. The requirement concerns the saying of Mass, not the hearing of Mass.
Thus a Latin Catholic (by which I mean a legal subject of the Latin church sui iuris, to use the precise term) who normally attends a parish in Rome, where the Missal of Pius V is used, could fulfill his Sunday obligation when travelling to Milan (where the Ambrosian rite is used).
The Roman traveller is not required to hear Mass celebrated any particular way. He can thus fulfill his Sunday obligation by hearing it said in whatever way is permitted locally. In Milan, that would have been the Ambrosian rite.
Part of the problem may be a misunderstanding about the term “rite.” Properly speaking, this refers to a particular liturgical/canonical tradition, not to a particular church in communion with Rome.
When people say “Latin rite” Catholics, they *mean* subjects of the Latin Church sui iuris.
However, the Latin church uses more than one liturgical rite. The Ambrosian rite, like the Dominican rite and a few others, is *used by* the Latin church. These are two of the forms of Mass that Pius V is referring to when he speaks of those that are more than 200 years old.
This is why a Latin Catholic (member of the Latin church sui iuris) could satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending Mass celebrated *either* according to the Missal of Pius V *or* the Ambrosian rite *or* the Dominican rite, etc.
In other words, the faithful *were not bound* to hear Mass celebrated according to a particular Missal. Quo Primum concerned the obligation of particular *celebrants* to use the new missal.
Consequently, when Benedict XVI says that this missal was never abrogated, he means that the use of the missal was never suppressed, and priests could–at least in some circumstances, which he then clarified–still use it.
However, the faithful were never bound to hear Mass celebrated according to that missal, and so they don’t need to hear Mass celebrated twice today. They can fulfill their obligation *either* by hearing the Mass celebrated according to the extraordinary form, the ordinary form, the Ambrosian rite, the Dominican rite, or any other Catholic rite–as specifically provided in the Code of Canon Law (CIC 1983).
I hope this helps, and God bless you!
Thank you for the response, my apologies for the late response..
Jimmy, I know English is a second language for me, but the document clearly states “Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.” Last time I checked, “all” refers to “all”! But the exception to this, is what you stated that the other Rites that at the time, if they were 200 years or older, they had the option of adopting the new Missal or keeping their current Rite.
To say that this document only binds the clergy is ridiculous, a Priest is a Priest, even a Novus Ordo Priest can fill in for a sick Priest of another Rite, as long as they know how to say that Mass. The Rite you are baptized into is the Rite that you are bound to. Your point about traveling from one town to another and going to Mass in another Rite is not the object of my question. When I say that Quo Primum binds every Roman Catholic, I do not exclude those exceptions in Quo Primum but those are not the norm.
How in the world can you even say this, of course they were/are!
The fact of the matter is that the Traditional Latin Mass as instituted by Pope Pius V was never judicially abrogated. A basic process of binding and loosing. Pope Pius V bound, Pope Paul VI should have loosed. If Pope Paul VI did not abrogate the Mass of Pope Pius V and Pope Benedict XVI confirms this, are we, as Roman Rite Catholics (Latin Rite Catholics) not in a state of disobedience?
I say we are and it is the reason why the Church is in a state that it is in. The reason we have mass apostasy in the Church is because what Father would give graces to a disobedient child?
Here is an interesting talk on Quo Primum by a Canon Lawyer:
Who says they are not so bound? Objectively speaking. In reality, if the nearest Tridentine Mass is a thousand miles away, or if the Catholic has no idea of this, then subjectively, it may not be possible. However, for those who know there is the Tridentine Mass, and are able to attend, I believe it is obligatory. I do disagree with the time that you give. In essentials, this Mass goes way back to the beginning, not just 400 years. The Council of Trent merely codified the true Mass and promulgated it.
What seems amiss here is the lack of faithful trust in the binding ability of Pope Paul VI.
1) Pius V in Quo Primium states, “We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.”
2) The “Our” he is speaking of would be God in communion with the Holy See, do you agree?
3) Pope Paul VI writes from the same authority as the Holy See (many years later), promulgating Missale Romanum.
3) In Missale Romanum Paul VI does not abrogate (make canonically illegal) the Traditional Latin Mass, though he does bind to Catholics the *ability* to follow the Novus Ordo mass, with the goal of revising and enriching the liturgy for present-day mentality.
The two forms are not (by the current position of the church) mutually exclusive, but rather are both celebratory and spiritually fulfilling of Christ’s desire that we “do this in memory of Him.” They are both celebrated in the same spirit and desire.
I grew up with the Novus Ordo. I didn’t know anything different until recently. Both rites are beautiful and extraordinary celebrations of our Lord and His sacrifice for us and in both forms he is made present physically and through anamnesis (CCC 1354). This reality is nothing short of GLORIOUS!
My question for you is this – if you believe in the binding and loosing abilities of the Holy See, why does one Pope’s (Pius V) binding ability outweigh the other’s (Paul VI)?
One thing I have noticed as of late (online only – not once in person) is a post V2 division in the church. I have come across many that disagree with decisions made during V2 and the Novus Ordo, many that are downright vicious in their name calling and comment box bashing. These discussions, when charitable, hold value in the light of understanding our church history, but are often argued as legalistic battles. They very often do not convey the love of Christ and respect for human dignity that we are called to.
It feels like this debate (TLM vs NO) often misses the point, looking beyond the faith Christ called us to in order to argue about legalistic correctness regarding worship. While I am quite sure this bantering over canon law is well meaning by all parties, it saddens me with its judgmental and often argumentative tone. Catholics are persecuted the world over for their faith. Do we need to persecute each other, also?
Do I want to please the Lord with all I do, especially in worship? Of course. His will be done (Lk 22:42). Have you ever noticed that Jesus spent a great deal of time focused on how to love those around us (Mark 12:31, Luke 6:27, Matthew 22:36 Luke 10:25, John 15:12, Matthew 7:1-2, etc), and how to live out his calling for us amidst others through love, and not as much time on how to worship? He instituted the Eucharist. Both forms of mass hold this as the highest celebration and pinnacle of our worship – the source and summit of Catholic life.
Pope Paul VI’s Missale Romanum gives to (binds) Catholics the ability to use the Novus Ordo form to do this. I am of the understanding that one can keep the commandment to love Him with all their heart, soul, and mind in either form of celebration.
Or are you positing that we are only loving him with heart, soul, and mind in the Traditional Latin Mass? If you believe this is the case, what case do you make for Paul VI’s suggested fallibility/error in binding regarding the Novus Ordo mass?
In many of the discussions on this matter that I have come across, the participants from both viewpoints are devoutly celebrating the Eucharistic miracle, and loving the Lord through the visible sign he gave us. Should we not then focus now on loving our neighbors as ourselves?
Please know that I enter into this discussion with humility, out of a desire to gain perspective and understanding regarding your viewpoint.
Be blessed today and always.
Hello Katie,
Very good post, and one that deserves to be read. I wish I had time to discuss all of your points so I will just focus on one.
“My question for you is this – if you believe in the binding and loosing abilities of the Holy See, why does one Pope’s (Pius V) binding ability outweigh the other’s (Paul VI)?”
This is precisely why there is serious disagreement, it is because both Pope’s have the power to Bind and Loose as stated by our Lord Jesus. The problem is actually very simple, Pope Pius V bound the faithful to the TLM, and released the faithful from every other Rite as outlined in the comments above. Pope Paul VI, not only never released everyone from the traditional Latin Mass of Pius V but Pope Paul VI did not even bind any of the faithful to the Novus Ordo Mass. Now he did create a new Rite and a Missal to go along with it, but no one is bound to it. So that means that all Roman Rite Catholics that attend that Mass are in a state of disobedience because they are actually still bound to the Mass that Pope St. Pius V bound on all Roman Rite Catholics.
Let me tell a little parable, a father asks his son to take the trash from the back of the house and put it on the street on the left side of the house. The son goes and takes the trash and puts it on the street but puts it on the right side of the house instead.
I ask you, did the son obey his father? Of course not, although he did most of it, he did not follow the directions as his father asked him to do. Now, as a parent, are you going to reward that child for not following directions?
Just like baptizing someone in the name of the Father and Son only is invalid because it must be in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Church cannot receive graces for being disobedient.
In Christ,
Joao
“…how is it that every Roman Catholic is not still bound, under the pains of Mortal Sin, to attend the Traditional Latin Mass every Sunday?”
—We are bound. However it’s almost impossible to actually find such a Mass. I watch live Latin Mass, and archived recordings, here: http://www.tikilive.com/show/saintjudes
It is a sin to go to modern so-called Mass. It is has been corrupted and is no longer valid.
Classic: Priests are to succeed where the public patron may fail thus someone becomes a symbol and a bearer of the cross to keep going when his ardent self blossoms. The amount of believers need to increase not dwindle in any shape or form. There is only one God. (Im not Orthodox but Roman Catholic by the way. But I love Orthodox singing so it gets me through personally when I’ve crossed over to temptation land.) I just discovered your site! I know nothing of these issues and was never educated despite Sunday School as a child, for example. By the time I was 16 I stopped flat attending the youth programs. Lets just say I stayed in it long enough to undergo the rite of confession and sacrament. I haven’t Gone to Sunday Mass since I moved to my new home in Anaheim for the whole 5 years. But! In my early 20’s I awoke in the morning of my own accord. Boasting…I went to Church in the 6-7:30 AM Hour. I was the only youth that age doing a stoic thing. I did this for a while-while no other young sapling would do what I have done.
Picture me, with about less then a handful of city folk receiving sacrament in the morning, to go out and bless others in the symbol
of a young person, then 20, in love with the Church. For me I will not ask to love another then the first introduction to God. Thus making it simple for myself. Achieve only to make more complex, that I have credit for doing something with other couples. Perhaps for their Children or the couple don’t have children but the world. Perhaps I celebrated my mornings then with just the Priest alone but not alone. I still remember the faces of the, “Starbucks regulars” at St. Edward’s Catholic Church. This is better then going to Church every Sunday. It makes me-me even if I go rogue and never attend Sunday Missal, again. Just to busy on the Grand Chase to get a Master’s Degree in CS. Just my morning chime…
P.S I have no ideas whether your site is safe to rant on. But this moment is good enough in the now. Like then like now, I thank God for putting me in Light and upstaging me in darkness. Joao, its okay if others are entitled to their opinion. At most it is their first impression of you. For being brave and having a link that expands to multiple articles is merit! Believe me? Few go in this way and few master the speak of priests. I’ll just commend your freedom of expression because of your faith to both Government and to Church. Good Job! (You’re not selling me anything rest assured!)
Unfortunately there are those who always think they are more Catholic than the pope. Not only do individuals misinterpret and twist the Sacred Scriptures, they also twist the writings of the pope and inject things that are not there. Using your logic, Pope Pius V abrogated the authority of any future pope to bind or to loose disciplines in the Church. To answer your question, realize that two years before “Quo Primum,” the same Pope Pius V issued “Quod a Nobis” (which introduced the new Roman breviary.) “Quod a Nobis” contains many expressions similar to “Quo Primum” regarding the perpetual force of law, the obligation of use in all places, and the total prohibition of adding or omitting anything. Centuries later, St. Pius X radically rearranged the ancient Roman Psalter, changed lessons, and also forbade the use of the old Psalter. This clearly shows that he, exclusively as pope, was not bound by the prescriptions issued in ‘Quod a Nobis’. One needs to reflect on Christ’s words when He gave Peter the power to bind or to loose things in heaven and on earth. The pope is Peter, as the Roman proverb says, “Popes die, the pope, never.” So instead of stirring anxieties in the hearts and minds of folks, try trusting the Vicar of Christ and the authority of the Church. People need to stop putting their faith in the Internet. People twist the writings of the Church with the same skill that others twist the Sacred Scriptures.
My dear friend, at this point in time, Martin Luther is more Catholic than the Pope…
Yes, according to all the talking heads and the media narratives. In reality, Pope Francis is merely reiterating the authoritative teachings of the Church. Unfortunately, many traditionalist groups in the Church, who seem to reduce the gospel down to attending a beautiful liturgy and following rules, are the new Protestant rebellion splintering the Church, just as all those protesting Catholics 500 years ago smearing the pope back then..