There are many SSPXer's here who will tell you that the Novus Ordo is bastardized and illegal, since Pius V said the Tridentine Mass was to be celebrated for "time immemorial." ` They also don't like the Novus Ordo because it's in the vernacular language, the priest faces the people, and a host of other changes from the Tridentine Mass.
No Pope can bind another Pope on matters of liturgy, so the Novus Ordo is the manner of celebrating the Mass used today.
The SSPX left in a huff in 1987, ostensibly over the Tridentine Mass, but really over the fact that its members didn't accept Vatican II.
The Tridentine Mass is permitted today, but only with special permission from the bishop..
The Mass of Pius V, mandated at the Council of Trent, and celebrated until Vatican II, when Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo (The New Order) Mass.
The Tridentine Rite was not mandated at the Council of Trent, which closed in 1563, but in Quo Primum, St. Pius V's papal bull of 1570. The Tridentine Rite was a codification of the existing Roman Rite as it had been celebrated, with few changes, from the 6th century.
There are many SSPXer's here who will tell you that the Novus Ordo is bastardized and illegal, since Pius V said the Tridentine Mass was to be celebrated for "time immemorial." ` They also don't like the Novus Ordo because it's in the vernacular language, the priest faces the people, and a host of other changes from the Tridentine Mass.
Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the sacramental validity of the Novus Ordo Missae. Celebrated with the proper intention, it is a valid Mass. But it is so structurally flawed that it is extremely difficult for a priest to celebrate it with the proper intention.
The priest facing the people was never mandated by Rome, even for the Novus Ordo. However, it marks a significant change in understanding the Mass. When the priest and people face the same direction, it is clear that they are all facing God, sharing in the same sacrifice at an altar. When the priest faces the people, he is turning his back away from Christ in the tabernacle to face the people in sharing a meal around a table.
Latin is still the normative language even of the Novus Ordo. As a dead language, the meanings of words no longer change and thus it is no longer subject to misinterpretation. Moreover, the use of a single language at Mass means that all Catholics, whatever their mother tongue, could go to any church in the world and understand the Mass.
Moreover, since very few people can ad lib in Latin, it prevents the flagrant liturgical abuse that priests can make by ad libbing changes to the words of consecration, thus invalidating it.
However, many of these practices which arose after Vatican II--mass in vernacular languages, Communion in the hand and under both species to the laity, priest facing the people--were in fact those carried out by the Protestant Reformers to deny the Real Presence and the sacrifical element of the Mass in favour of a symbolic celebration of a meal. For that reason alone, these changes are contrary to Catholic faith.
No Pope can bind another Pope on matters of liturgy, so the Novus Ordo is the manner of celebrating the Mass used today.
Quo Primum specifically established the Tridentine Rite as the Rite of the Mass for all time.
The Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is considered infallible when he pronounces on matters of faith. The Mass is the sublime expression of the central truth of the Catholic faith. Therefore matters of liturgy are matters of faith, to which Popes can bind their successors.
The SSPX left in a huff in 1987, ostensibly over the Tridentine Mass, but really over the fact that its members didn't accept Vatican II.
Partially true. Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated along with the four bishops whom he consecrated in 1988, to assure the continuation of the apostolic succession of bishops faithful to Catholic tradition who could in turn ordain priests to offer the unchanged and unchanging sacraments of the Church.
Vatican II was not a doctrinal, but a pastoral council. Therefore, its teachings are not infallible, nor do they otherwise bind Catholics in conscience. A Catholic may therefore question the wisdom of Vatican II, but this does not make him heretical or schismatic.
We can tell a tree by its fruits, and the fruits of Vatican II can be seen in the great loss of faith, vocations and fidelity to the Church's teachings among the laity, and the misdirection and apostasy of much of the priesthood, religious, and bishops.
All other councils were noted for the growth in faith and piety of the laity, priests, and religious which followed them. Vatican II stands out as a glaring exception so far, but we may need another generation before its fruits, if any, emerge.
The Tridentine Mass is permitted today, but only with special permission from the bishop.
As Quo Primum could not be abrogated, a priest doesn't need the permission of the bishop to celebrate it. If a diocesan priest in charge of a parish were to decide, for the good of his parishoners, to stop celebrating the New Mass and sacraments in his church, the bishop could not stop him.
However, it may be more prudent in some circumstances to seek permission.
The teaching of the Council on liturgical reform is contained in its "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" Sacrosanctum Concilium" , which is dated Dec. 4, 1963. There is not a single word in the entire Liturgy Constitution of Vatican II requiring a single change to be be made to the traditional Roman Rite, or the sanctuaries in which it was celebrated.
The Latin language was to be preserved in the Latin rites (Article 36) and steps were to be taken to ensure that the faithful could sing or say together those parts of the Mass that pertain to them (Article 54). All lawfully acknowledged rites were held to be of equal authority and dignity and were to be preserved in the future and fostered in every way (Article 4).
The story of how the Novus Ordo arose, is a long one and takes more time and space than I have here. However, its origin can be traced to the periti gaining power to interpret the council as they wished.
Article 128 of the Liturgy Constitution is a good example. It reads:" The canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provision of external things which pertain to sacred worship should be revised as soon as possible, together with the liturgical books, as laid down in Article 25. These laws refer especially to the worthy and well-planned construction of sacred buildings, the shape and construction of altars, the nobility placing and structure of the eucharistic tabernacle, the suitability and dignity of the baptistry, the proper ordering of sacred images and the scheme of decoration and embellishment. Laws which seem les suited to the reformed liturgy should be amended or abolished. Those which are helpful are to be retained, or introduced , if lacking."
Looked at with the benefit of hindsight, this passage provides an open-ended mandate for drastic change to anyone with an agenda.