FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Is a priest free to offer Mass according to any Roman Catholic Rite?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(10-26-2009, 12:55 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-26-2009, 12:43 PM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]Today only the Ordinary or the Extraordinary Forms (1962) are allowed

Actually, the Sarum Rite has been celebrated by Catholic priests on several occasions in the past few decades, most notably in 2000 by Mario Conti, currently Archbishop of Glasgow, then Bishop of Aberdeen. Less extraordinarily, the (reformed) Ambrosian Rite is still used in the Archdiocese of Milan, the Mozarabic Rite is celebrated daily in the Cathedral of Toledo (and at least twice a year in all churches of Toledo), and the Rite of Braga in Portugal; I also recall that a Mass according to the Rite of Braga was said in the US (New York?) earlier this year.

The pratice not always follows the rules. How do you interpret this?

03-23-1955
4. All particular indults and customs, even those worthy of special
mention, if contrary to these ordinances, are to be considered as
expressly revoked.
http://divinumofficium.com/www/horas/Hel...s/1955.txt

My understanding is that even some trad priest work hard to lax the authority for their ideas. We are just living in an era, when the individualism is the rule against the obedience. Probabli Mozarabic. ambrosian  etc rites with some modifications (related to the Calendar) are allowed for the shake of the continuity, but ad libitum used old rites almost certainly are aginst the continuity of the Church
"1. The ordinances which follow concern the Roman rite. Whatever is not mentioned here is unchanged."
--Cum Nostra (the same document quoted above), Title 1, point 1 (the very first thing after the preamble)

The Roman rite is not the same as the Latin Rite.  They're not talking about the Western Church as a whole; they're referring to the (Tridentine) Roman rite.  I'm not sure that we can read into this any kind of abrogation of the other Western rites.  If we do, then all of the liturgies that Trent allowed other than the Missal of St. Pius V would have been destroyed in 1955.  I think that might have been memorable enough to have shown up before a quote from some relatively obscure document.
A little history here, not to segue into another aspect of this discussion, but it may be relavent to the question.

The Sarum Rite, York, Lincoln, and Hereford Rites were all more than 200 years old and so were not abrogated under Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum. However, the Church in England voluntarily accepted the Tridentine Rite during Penal Times in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. (Wouldn't it be ironic if England came back to Catholicism under another Queen named Elizabeth?)

The Sarum Rite was devised by St. Osmund who was Bishop of Salisbury, or Sarum. Osmund was of Norman French descent.

In recent times the Sarum Rite has been used twice, once to bury the remains of sailors found on Henry VIII's warship, The Mary Rose, and once at the 500th anniversary of the Chapel of a Scottish University, Aberdeen or St. Andrews.

Some enthusiasts for the TLM may well take the opportunity to try out the Sarum or other Rites.

Now, that I've covered that, let me offer this: I do know that when Summorum Pontificum was issued, Cardinal Tettamanzi of Milan tried to say it did not cover the Ambrosian Rite, and forbade celebration of that Rite in Milan. I'm not sure if this has been dealt with by the Pope as of yet, maybe someone can find out, but this was Tettamanzi's way of throwing a hissy fit.  Either way, the Pope should clear the air on all of this, on whether or not other Rites are covered under SP, particularly now with the developments of the past week.
(10-26-2009, 04:05 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote: [ -> ]Now, that I've covered that, let me offer this: I do know that when Summorum Pontificum was issued, Cardinal Tettamanzi of Milan tried to say it did not cover the Ambrosian Rite, and forbade celebration of that Rite in Milan. I'm not sure if this has been dealt with by the Pope as of yet, maybe someone can find out, but this was Tettamanzi's way of throwing a hissy fit.  Either way, the Pope should clear the air on all of this, on whether or not other Rites are covered under SP, particularly now with the developments of the past week.

Msgr Camille Perl, then secretary of the PCED, stated that the motu proprio covered the Ambrosian Rite.
(10-26-2009, 02:55 PM)FrancisB Wrote: [ -> ]"1. The ordinances which follow concern the Roman rite. Whatever is not mentioned here is unchanged."
--Cum Nostra (the same document quoted above), Title 1, point 1 (the very first thing after the preamble)

The Roman rite is not the same as the Latin Rite.  They're not talking about the Western Church as a whole; they're referring to the (Tridentine) Roman rite.  I'm not sure that we can read into this any kind of abrogation of the other Western rites.  If we do, then all of the liturgies that Trent allowed other than the Missal of St. Pius V would have been destroyed in 1955.  I think that might have been memorable enough to have shown up before a quote from some relatively obscure document.

This is true, although the Calendar changes were more universal, even the Benedictines and the Eastern Catholics adopted them, naturally keeping their own feasts. 

The non Roman Latin rites were allowed to keep the continuity of the old rite, in their traditional territory. So Ambrosian rite in the US or in England is not legal, unless by someone who is incardinated into the diocese of Milan if the bishop of Milan at least implicitly allows it.
(10-26-2009, 05:59 PM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]The non Roman Latin rites were allowed to keep the continuity of the old rite, in their traditional territory. So Ambrosian rite in the US or in England is not legal, unless by someone who is incardinated into the diocese of Milan if the bishop of Milan at least implicitly allows it.

So, if I understand correctly, celebration according to a local rite depends on incardination into the diocese(s) wherein the rite is ordinarily used? Is there an index of these dioceses for each rite?
Beyond that, is there anyone that can point to an actual canon or other document that explains/verifies this?  It's not that I think you're wrong glgas, since what you're saying makes a lot of sense.  I'm just not sure the matter is really settled without an authoritative source.
It would seem to me that the matter was settled in '88 with Ecclesia Dei. Note that the Pope does not say attached to the Mass of St Pius V as it existed in 1962. He says 'attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition'.

Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul II, 2 July 1988 Wrote:To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations.
With all due respect, Jovan, Ecclesia Dei does not settle the matter.  The fact that the other old rites of the West could be said with proper permissions was never in question.  The question was whether or not they could be said universally without special permissions.  Everything in Ecclesia Dei required an indult from the bishop, even the TLM.  This rule is no longer in effect, however. 
(10-26-2009, 10:50 PM)FrancisB Wrote: [ -> ]With all due respect, Jovan, Ecclesia Dei does not settle the matter.  The fact that the other old rites of the West could be said with proper permissions was never in question.  The question was whether or not they could be said universally without special permissions.  Everything in Ecclesia Dei required an indult from the bishop, even the TLM.  This rule is no longer in effect, however. 

Good point. I stand corrected.
Pages: 1 2 3