|
作者
|
內容
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2007/4/23 下午 03:54:57
|
|
|
The Legal Status of the Traditional Latin Mass after "Missale Romanum" of Paul VI 1969.
All the canons quoted come from the 1917 Code of Canon Law which was in vigour in 1969. Moreover, this is strictly a legal study of the legitimacy of the Traditional Mass; we are not considering the numerous other aspects of the act promulgating the New Mass on April 3, 1969.
I - IMPORTANT NOTIONS
A) Law
1) Definition
A law is an "ordinance of reason for the common good made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated." St Thomas, 1-2, q.90, a.4.
2) Promulgation
Promulgation is the official publication of a law which makes it possible for the subject of the law to learn of it. "The promulgation is necessary for the law to obtain its force." St Thomas, 1-2, q.90, a.4.
3) General and particular laws
Canon 13 §1: "All those for whom general laws are made are bound by them everywhere."
A general law is one which is not limited to a particular territory, it is a universal law of the Church. While these general or universal laws bind everywhere, they do not always bind every individual Catholics but only those for whom they are made (e.g. clerics). A particular law is one which is made for a particular territory or for certain persons. (For example, St Patrick’s Day, March 17, is a holyday of obligation in Ireland and Australia).
4) Cessation of the law
There are three ways in which legislation can cease to apply:
a. abrogation i.e. abolished completely. If a law is abrogated the new legislation must say so specifically and clearly.
b. derogation i.e. the previous legislation still remains in force but is modified in some ways. It is a partial abrogation.
c. obrogation This is the substitution of new legislation which automatically replaces previous legislation without any specific words of abrogation.
d. Principles - Canon. 20. Si certa de re desit expressum praescriptum legis sive generalis sive particularis, norma sumenda est, nisi agatur de poenis applicandis, a legibus latis in similibus; a generalibus iuris principiis cum aequitate canonica servatis; a stylo et praxi Curiae Romanae; a communi constantique sententia doctorum.
1. If the later law is equally general or equally particular with the former one, then the later law repeals the former one in only three cases:
i. if it contains an explicit statement to that effect, a repealing clause;
ii. if it is directly contrary to the former law so that it is evidently impossible for the two to stand together;
iii. if it deals with the entire subject matter of the former law.
In all other cases, or if the matter is doubtful (c. 23), the two laws stand together and are to be reconciled as far as possible.
2. If the later law is particular and the former general, the later law prevails for the particular place or persons to whom it applies. This is a general principle not stated in the canon but understood.
3. If the later law is general and the former one particular, no repeal is effected unless the later general law expressly repeals the former particular one.
e. Doubtful revocation of a law - Canon. 23. In dubio revocatio legis praeexsistentis non praesumitur, sed leges posteriores ad priores trahendae sunt et his, quantum fieri possit conciliandae.
"In doubt the revocation of the former law is not presumed but later laws are to be considered in connection with earlier ones and as far as possible to be reconciled with them. The reason for this rule is that law is for the common good and hence the repeal of a law is considered an odious thing, not to be presumed, nor admitted without proof. "
B) Custom
1) Notions
Custom may be considered in two ways: as a fact and as a legal norm.
As a fact, custom means a practice or way of acting which is common in a certain community,
As a legal norm, it means a norm or law introduced by such practice. It is an unwritten law, founded upon the common practice in the community and approved by the superior.
Custom is the best interpretation of law (can. 29), especially if laws are doubtful or uncertain.
A custom can be relatively recent or very ancient. Some are called "centenary and immemorial customs."
2) Cessation of custom:
Can. 30. Firmo praescripto can. 5, consuetudo contra legem vel praeter legem per contrariam consuetudinem aut legem revocatur; sed, nisi expressam de iisdem mentionem fecerit, lex non revocat consuetudines centenarias aut immemorabiles, nec lex generalis consuetudines particulares.
a) It can cease intrinsically if the matter of the custom changes in relation to honesty or the common good.
b) It can cease extrinsically i. By a legitimately approved contrary custom; ii. By a law which removes the custom; iii. By direct revocation by the competent superior; iv. By neglect.
c) Precisions on the cessation of customs
i. A general law removes a general custom, a particular law a particular custom, when they are contrary to each other even if there is no mention of them.
ii. For a general law to remove a particular custom, it is necessary that it expresses this custom by name or that it has a clause such as "notwithstanding any custom whatsoever".
iii. To remove a centenary custom, a particular clause is required - "notwithstanding any custom whatsoetever even centenary and immemorial". This clause is required even for the revocation of a general custom by a general law.
iv. A new custom removes an earlier one if it is totally opposed to it, if not totally opposed, they must be reconciled.
C) Privilege
1) Notions (Canon 63)
A privilege is a special disposition lawfully made by competent authority granting to some person or persons a right which is contrary to or beyond the common law.
A privilege can be granted by law, by a particular indult, or orally.
2) Cessation of privileges
There are five modes of cessation: by revocation of the competent superior, by renunciation of the privileged person, by extinction, by prescription or by tacit renunciation, by privation.
Note: A privilege is to be regarded as perpetual unless the contrary appears (canon 60).
II - THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE TRADITIONAL MASS
Thesis:
Major: The Traditional Mass in the Tridentine rite
1) is a general law - with the Bull Quo Primum
2) is a perpetual privilege - with the clauses included in Quo Primum
3) is a centenary and immemorial custom.
minor 1: Now, to be abolished, all these three legal grounds must be abolished together.
minor 2:
a) Now, Paul VI with the Constitution Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969, did not abolish any of the three legal grounds.
b) He merely derogated to the prohibition to offer the Holy Mass in any other way than imposed by St Pius V.
Conclusion:
Therefore,
a) the Traditional Mass in its Latin Tridentine rite is perfectly legal. Pope Paul VI did not abolish it.
b) The Constitution Missale Romanum merely derogated to Quo Primum by promulgating a new rite of Mass.
Proof of the Major
The Bull Quo Primum makes of the Tridentine Mass a General Law:
"We specifically command each and every Patriarch, Administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank of pre-eminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
"Consequently, it is Our will, and by the same authority We decree, that one month after publication of this Our Constitution and Missal, priests of the Roman Curia shall be obliged to sing or to read the Mass in accordance therewith; others South of the Alps, after three months; those who live beyond the Alps, after six months or as soon as the Missal becomes available for purchase."
The Bull grants a perpetual privilege:
"Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall Bishops, Administrators, Canons, Chaplains and other secular priests or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. We likewise order and declare that no one whoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the uses of the churches aforesaid, established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than 200 years." Quo Primum.
Moreover, the Traditional Mass is a centenary and immemorial custom:
"We resolved accordingly to delegate this task to a select committee of scholars; and they, having at every stage of their work and with the utmost care collated the ancient codices in Our Vatican library and reliable (original or amended) codices from elsewhere, and having also consulted the writing of ancient and approved authors who have bequeathed to Us records relating to the said sacred rites, thus restored the Missal itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this production had been subjected to close scrutiny and further amended, We, after mature consideration, ordered that the final result be forthwith printed and published in Rome" Quo Primum.
Proof of the first minor
This is the result of the notions set above in the first part. One legal ground is sufficient for the legality of the Traditional Mass.
Proof of the second minor
a) Now, Paul VI with the Constitution Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969, did not abolish any of the three legal grounds.
This is the conclusion of Missale Romanum: "It is Our will that these decisions and ordinances should be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding any Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinances made by Our predecessors, and all other decrees including those deserving of special mention no matter of what kind"
1. It did not abrogate the general law promulgated by Quo Primum:
"It is Our will that these decisions and ordinances..." Nowhere in Missale Romanum is it decided and ordered that the Bull Quo Primum itself or the general law promulgated by the Bull have been abrogated, let alone the Mass which St Pius V codified with this Bull.
2. It did not suppress the perpetual privilege.
The word 'privilege' is not present in Missale Romanum. Therefore it is not revoked according to canon 70: "A privilege is regarded as perpetual unless the contrary appears".
3. It did not suppress the centenary and immemorial customs.
The clause necessary to suppress centenary and immemorial custom "notwithstanding any custom whatsoever even centenary and immemorial" is no where to be found in the Constitution Missale Romanum.
b) He merely derogated to the prohibition to offer the Holy Mass in any other way than imposed by St Pius V.
As seen above (see Proof of the Major), St Pius V forbade the use of any other Missal for the reading or singing of Mass. Pope Paul VI derogated to this prohibition by his new Mass. Let it be noted that he has the power to do so. It does not mean however that it was morally right or wise to do so nor that the new Missal is doctrinally sound.
Conclusion.
If any one disputes this conclusion, let him prove it by quoting the name of the Pope who did abrogate the Bull Quo Primum and the centenary and immemorial custom, together with the title of the document, the date, and the specific words of abrogation used. If there were a doubt about the abrogation, then canon 23 should be used: In doubt the revocation of the former law is not presumed but later laws are to be considered in connection with earlier ones and as far as possible to be reconciled with them.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2007/4/23 下午 04:19:53
|
|
|
一個有四百年的習俗, 會不明不白就(如某些人士聲稱)被"abolished / abrogated"掉嗎?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2007/7/7 下午 10:01:56
|
|
|
如今教宗親自訓示:
"1962 特利騰拉丁文彌撒從未被廢止, 它是一直被允許的".
"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. " (Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum", 7 July, 2007)
(以前) 任何人稱曰: 梵蒂岡二次會議 後, 新彌撒/禮儀改革的出現 "表示"/”意味” 梵二前拉丁文彌撒已被廢止 / 禁止, 或被替代, 是不誠實地誤導教友的行為.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2007/7/13 下午 05:24:12
|
|
|
奧斯定的說法也有其誤導的成份.
脫利騰彌撒在這手諭之前就算並未廢止,卻確實是受"限制",否則就沒有之前的"特准舉行"
被"替代"是肯定的,由原本是"常規"的禮儀,變成"非常規"的禮儀,不是替代是甚麼?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2007/7/14 下午 02:07:49
|
|
|
To avoid misunderstanding(s),
Thesis 1:
"Traditional Latin Mass was abrogated after Nov 1969"......I Negate. This is a lie.
Thesis 2:
"Traditional Latin Mass was derogated("替代"!?) after Nov 1969"......I Concede. However, derogation does not negate the right of existence of the derogated.
A derogation only offers an alternative to the derogated, it has no effect on the derogated.
Unless we clarify whether "替代" is a derogation, or (as claimed by some with dishonesty) an abrogation, there will forever be misunderstanding(s).
-------------------------------------------------------
Objectively, there was clear restriction on the part of certain clergymen (not the Holy See) for the restriction ("限制"). This had not been questioned.
Question 1: CAN this restriction CLAIM its authority to come from Sacrosanctum Concilium? What is (if any) the foundation for this (objectively existent) "re-st-ri-ction"?
Or was this restriction only the result of human manipulation (in the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, an "obscene to prohibit it (the traditional mass)")?
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2007/7/16 下午 01:45:36
|
|
|
奧兄：
小弟愚見認為，舊禮彌撒在法理上（de iure）未曾被廢止，但在事實上（de facto）則被大多數人送進墳墓了。
另一些明顯的例子，就是拉丁語在禮儀中的使用、感恩經第一式的使用。
我們亦可爭辯：舌領聖體在香港教區，是否已被廢止了？
小弟新建堂的那個鄉下堂區，接待了幾個從另一鄉下來的國內教友。他們上前領聖體時「舌領」，被我們堂區的送聖體員譏為「不懂怎樣領聖體」，並被要求要按教區禮委頒布的「正確方式」領呢。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2007/7/16 下午 01:58:46
|
|
|
靚仔兄：
不過，現任教宗亦一直認為保祿六世的措施，在禮儀史上乃極不尋常的行為。相信兄亦知悉，他老人家一向重視「organic development」。簡單地說，他對很多人以「出埃及」般的經歷來銷售新禮的「好處」，看不過眼。
他所著眼的包括聖庇護十世會的裂教弟兄，但顯然並不只包括他們。相信你也知道，在香港參加舊禮的教友，青少年乃為數不少。
因此，現時本篤老子近日舉動，乃算為撥亂反正也。兩禮並行不悖，讓「hermeneutic of continuity」可有其闡釋空間，亦未嘗不可看成教會內外的「修好」的途徑也。
|
|
