Furthermore, by virtue of the content of this act and by the power of Our Apostolic Authority, we admit and admit forever that for singing or reciting Holy Mass in any church, it is absolutely possible to usage this Mass, without any scruples of conscience or fear of being subjected to punishment, court or censorship, and that it can be utilized freely and legally. No bishop, administrator, canonist, chaplain or another diocesan priest, or friar of any assembly, nevertheless titled, may be obliged to execute Mass in any another way than by Us. Similarly, we order and declare that no 1 may be urged or forced to change this Mass; and this Constitution can never be nullified or amended, but it will stay valid forever, and will have legal power, despite erstwhile constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodic assemblies, and despite the customs of the churches, established by the very old or eternal order, keeping only customs of more than 200 years old – Bulla Quo prime tempore St. Pius V.
St. Pius V contrary to his opinion in his bull Quo prime tempore he did not set up any fresh rite of mass, but simply unified the various variants and systematised them into 1 coherent whole. At the same time, he granted privileges to all priests who, according to his express will, could never be punished for having performed the promulgated Trident rite of Holy Mass.
History put this act to a serious test due to the fact that Paul VI explicitly limited and even banned the conventional rite of mass, while not creating a legal act whose rank would be adequate for Pius V's bull. Constitution Missale Romanum at no point prohibits the ritual of the Latin Holy Mass, which was banned on the basis of lower rank arbitrary provisions. The question arises whether the Pope has the power to abolish the Catholic rite utilized by the full Church? According to popular opinions of the scholastic theologians Kajetan and Suarez, the pope has no specified power.
However, the objectives of the architects of the fresh liturgical order are much more questionable. "Prayer must not become a scandal to our separated brethren; so we shall remove from Mass all that may seem even a shadow of stumbling to our separated brethren." – Archbishop Bugini, origin – Fr Grzegorz Śniadoch IBP, Holy Trident Mass. Myths and Truth, issue II popr. and uzup., Centre for Culture and Tradition, Tooths 2014, p. 271.)
The top opposition to the fresh liturgy was expressed by Protestant converts specified as Michael Davis and Dietrich von Hildebrand. Better than Catholics who were raised in their religion from childhood, they understood that Protestant rituals were approved for the Roman liturgy, in peculiar the improvement of Cranmer, whose similarity was shown by Michael Davis in his monumental work Destruction of Holy Mass or Godly Order Cranmer.
Every honest observer needs to see the crucial differences between the conventional rite of Holy Mass and the fresh one, as a consequence of the extremist removal from the main part of the Holy Mass, which is the offerory of more than 90 percent of the text! It is this component of Catholic worship that most repugnant Protestants who question the necessity of a propitiatory component in the liturgy. For Catholics, this is 1 of the basic aims of Holy Mass, as taught by the catechism of Pius X or Cardinal Gasparri.
The full problem alongside the legal aspect of canon law besides has a moral problem. Even if we presume that the pope has the right to change the essence of Catholic rites, we should besides consider the effect. The dispute is as alive as possible, despite the fact that the vast majority of Catholics have become accustomed to Novus Ordo Missae. There are inactive persons in the Church who, despite large difficulties, want to participate in the conventional Roman liturgy in unity with the bishop of the place on an indult basis. There are besides those who believe that the abolition of the Ordo Missae was illegal and do not request peculiar permissions to execute Catholic rites, specified a position is occupied by the Priesthood of Saint Pius X.
The problem is not mitigated by the line of the current pontificate, which goes on a extremist break-up with the post-Trident period of the Church to implement the "spirit of the Second Vatican Council". The full dispute is dominated by an emotional view of a problem that completely blocks a substantive discussion. The differences of opinion arise not from rational reasons, but from life practices, from who goes and who does not go to old or fresh Mass.
All unconvinced about the material difference between the 2 rites I encourage you to read Jean Guitton’s memoirs of Paul VI. In another words, we see in Paul VI the ecumenical intention of throwing everything distant or at least correcting everything that is besides Catholic, with Mass and the close-up of Mass – I will repeat this again – as powerfully as possible to the Calvinist liturgy.” origin – Paweł Mielcarek, History of Mass. A Guide to the past of the Roman Liturgy, Kraków 2009, p. 237.
I encourage everyone to have a substantive discussion on the analysis presented in the above text. Throwing the invectors 1 way or the another will keep the problem dead, and after all, our salvation depends on the Catholic Holy Mass. It's not a trivial subject. We observe a drastic decline in priestly vocations, the Jesuit Fathers issue positions suggesting that the priesthood is not necessarily essential to the Church (see the position of the publication of the Jesuits WAM: Martin Ebner, Does the Church request priests?). The answer to the crisis should be as always in the past of the Church. It is to return to Tradition
Read also:
P. Krzemiński: I accuse Jesuits
