THE CONTROVERSY OVER MISSALE ROMANUM

On p. 279 of 'Pope Paul's New Mass' (PPNM), Michael Davies, with reference to the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969, notes that it is prefaced by the following words: PROMULGATION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL RESTORED BY THE DECREEE OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. He states: "A careful examination of this Apostolic constitution will reveal that it does not promulgate anything". In other words there is an anomaly between the text of the document and its title. Nevertheless, it was a deception that succeeded in making people believe that the new missal was officially promulgated by the Pope in a document that constituted a valid and binding law on all priests and faithful of the Roman rite.
There are precisely two decrees in that apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum, of Pope Paul VI:

1. three new Eucharistic prayers are to be used

2. what are to be the new words of consecration

Read it carefully. You will see that there is nothing else decreed in the entire document. A new Rite of Mass is not promulgated in that decree - that happened 3 days later. If you look at the introduction to the new missal, you will find straight after MR a document from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship signed by Cardinal Gut on 6th April 1969, promulgating the new missal after it had just purportedly been promulgated by Pope Paul VI in Missale Romanum! This promulgation only permitted the use of the new missal, giving the bishops the authority to say when the new missal may be used. That’s as far as the promulgation of the new missal ever went. It is to be implemented by the bishops. It is not true, therefore, that the missal of Pope Paul VI was promulgated as a binding law for the universal Church of the Latin Rite.

Consider the following facts:
1. MR does not command anyone to use the missal, as it does not state who is the subject of the supposed law and therefore does not impose a law on those who are specified as the subjects. A law that does not command the subject to do or not to do something is like a definition that does not define - or a pub with no beer!

2. Nowhere in MR is it laid down that the traditional Missal may no longer be used or that it is the will of Pope Paul VI that his new missal shall be mandatory for every priest of the Roman Rite. The document contained words which were later mistranslated into many languages giving the false impression that MR imposes "the force of law" when their real meaning is "to sum up and draw a conclusion".

3. The version in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See which record all official texts of the Papacy) has an added paragraph that was not in the original document signed by the Pope, purporting to enforce the New Missal, but as is now well known, this later insertion contained words which make its meaning doubtful. According to the old Roman rule lex dubia non obligat, a doubtful law does not bind.

There is a huge question mark over the exact nature of the legal status of MR, and even one of the Church's highest authorities in Canon Law (Professor Neri Capponi, who, incidentally, is not a supporter of the SSPX) has highlighted its ambiguities and the problem of interpreting it correctly. In Some Juridical Considerations on the Reform of the Liturgy (Edinburgh: Una Voce, 1979, p. 22), he notes that the whole extent and purport of the reform of the Roman missal is thrown into doubt not only on account of the weakness and ambiguity of the language used in MR itself but also by the "persistent defects in legitimacy" of the legislative texts that followed and were supposed to interpret MR to the faithful (ibid. p. 21).

Such is the nature of the uncertainty of MR that he can only tentatively advance his opinion as a hypothesis that the Tridentine Mass may "PERHAPS" be obrogated, i.e. replaced by MR. Other Canon Lawyers (both SSPX and non-SSPX) demonstrate how MR has derogated from the previous legislation in Quo Primum so that Pius V's perpetual indult for all priests to say the Tridentine Mass still stands and that the Tridentine Mass itself remains in force at least by reason of the immemorial custom which has never been abrogated.

Pope Paul VI probably did wish, in a personal capacity, that the use of the Tridentine Mass should be discontinued in favour of the novus ordo. That was the impression he wanted to create. But he would not take the responsibility of actually legislating that in an Apostolic Constitution.

We can conclude that the only thing that is absolutely certain and has even been verified unanimously by a commission of 9 Cardinals in 1986 is that the Tridentine Mass has never been abrogated.

One cannot therefore lawfully conclude that the perpetual indult granted in Quo Primum has been revoked. The correct conclusion is that as Quo Primum has never been abrogated, it is still in force and constitutes, today as yesterday, the legal basis for the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass. Just because hierarchies refuse to accept this does not mean that the Tridentine rite is illegal or that a priest needs special permission from a bishop to celebrate it.
There exists no Canon which could possibly be interpreted as giving a bishop the authority to restrict or deny the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.