Notes on "Can Pope Francis Ban the Latin Mass?" Presentation by Michael Lofton

This post contains my notes on Michael Lofton’s Video “Can Pope Francis Ban the Latin Mass? More Than 5 Quotes.” This post is a summary of his content, all credit goes to him. I provide the sources I used which may slightly differ from the video due to translation variance.

The Answer

• Short Answer: Yes
  • The Magisterium affirms that the Pope can discontinue the Missal of 1962 (M62) and replace it with the Missal of 1969 (M69)
  • NOTE: Possible because M69 is not a different rite than M62
• This is a different question than should the Pope discontinue the Latin Mass

Magisterium on Papal Authority and the Liturgy

Council of Trent

Session 21, Chapter 2¹:

It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance remaining untouched, it might ordain, or change, what things soever it might judge most expedient for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places. And this the apostle seems to have intimated not obscurely, when he says, Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

• Substance must remain the same
  • If the sacramental validity is held in M69 then the substance is admitted to be of the same substance
• Whatever the Church, not the laity as if the Church were a democracy, judges most expedient can be reason for change
• This can be done according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places
  • The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (SC 1²) says: “This sacred Council aims… to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change…”

Wherefore, Holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has, from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been infrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having already been very widely changed, she, induced by weighty and just reasons, has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at pleasure, without the authority of the Church itself.

• Receiving under both kinds is “from the beginning” of Christianity, thus being a tradition from the apostolic era
• The Church, despite the apostolicity, has the authority to approve the custom of communication under one species
• One cannot reprobate or change the law at pleasure without the authority of the Church

First Vatican Council

Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 3.1³:

Hence We teach and declare that by the appointment of our LORD the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

• Applies not just to the Roman Rite but also the East as well (“whatsoever rite and dignity”)
• Faithful and clergy are bound (obliged) to submit to this power of the Roman Pontiff
• Not just faith and morals, but also discipline
  • Cannot disobey the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world

If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those things which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the pastors of the faithful; let him be anathema⁴.

• Attaches an anathema to those who reduce the supreme power to an office of mere “inspection or direction”
• The Roman Pontiff has power “not only in things which belong to faith and morals” but rather the Pope has power for “those things which relate to discipline and government”
• Cannot deny that the Pope has this supreme ordinary and immediate power

Pope Pius XII

Mediator Dei, 58⁵:

It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

• The Sovereign Pontiff, the Pope, alone has the power to recognize and establish practices, not a private individual or even clergy
• Touches any practice touching the worship of God
• Pope can even introduce and approve entirely new rites
• Most important: the Pope can modify those which he judges to require modification
  • The Pope judges what requires modification, not laymen

Sacramentum Ordinis⁶:

If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.

• It is possible for, in certain cases, to change the matter of a sacrament
• Some argue that Florence proposed a different view of the priesthood, Pius XII says it is irrelevant since the Church can change elements pertaining to validity that she has established
• Certain requirements can be added/established for sacramental validity

Pope St. Pius V

Quo Primum

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal⁷.

• Pope can completely discontinue rites of other missals
• This pertains to however ancient the missal may be
  • Not speaking about the same thing as when Pius V speaks about rights at least 200 years old as he is elsewhere
• Also worth nothing that Pius V did not think preventing any ceremonial or ritual changes was irreformable since he made changes to the missal afterwards

Pope Pius VI

Auctorem Fidei⁸ (Condemned proposition):

[T]he Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

• Condemning the idea that the Church can establish dangerous and harmful disciplines
• You risk running afoul of this if you assert that the Church can or has established inherent harmful discipline
• Very common for so-called “traditionalists” to brazenly violate this censor

Catholic Encyclopedia

Ecclesiastical Discipline⁹:

Among the chief duties of a Christian the worship of God must be assigned a place apart. The rules to be observed in this worship, especially public worship, constitute liturgical discipline. This cannot be said to depend absolutely upon the Church, as it derives the essential part of the Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments from Jesus Christ; however, for the greater part, liturgical discipline has been regulated by the Church and includes the rites of the Holy Sacrifice, the administration of the sacraments and of the sacramentals, and other ceremonies.

• Liturgy falls under discipline
  • Contains faith and morals, no doubt the substance of the sacraments must be maintained
  • Plenty of elements are liturgical discipline, not matters of faith
• For the “greater part” the liturgical disciplines have been regulated by the Church, the majority of the elements are part of liturgical discipline
• These liturgical disciplines are under the Church’s power to control

Pope St. Paul VI

The Mass is the Same 10-11¹⁰:

But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition.

• The substance has been maintained in M69
• M69 does not run contrary to the prayer and practice of the Church
• Rites and their rubrics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition

Allocution (May 24th, 1976)¹¹:

There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ… It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!

• Rejecting the application and the reforms is falsely alleged to be a greater fidelity to the Magisterium
• The traditions belong not to “this group” of dissenters, it belongs to the Episcopal College, the Ecumenical Council
• What traditions belong not to the bishops, the pope, and the Church?
  • The Catholic Church is not a democracy

Pope Benedict XVI

Summorum Pontificum Accompanying Letter¹²:

It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

• According to Pope Benedict XVI the M62 and M69 are not two different rites, they are two uses of the same rite

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.

• Liturgical development is that of “growth and progress” and not “rupture”
• The missals existing side-by-side creates no issue since they are simply different levels of growth, not contrary to one another

Summorum Pontificum¹³:

These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.

• Reiterates that there is one Roman Rite
• If you refer to the M62 and M69 as separate rites you are opposed to Pope Benedict XVI’s writing

In response to this desire, our predecessor Pope Paul VI in 1970 approved for the Latin Church revised and in part renewed liturgical books; translated into various languages throughout the world, these were willingly received by the bishops as well as by priests and the lay faithful.

• The pope has the authority to impose liturgical discipline from the top, but Benedict notes that the bishops and laity also accepted the “revised and in part renewed” liturgy

Pope John Paul II, concerned for their pastoral care, through the special Indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty of using the Roman Missal published in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII.

• Pope St. JPII granted the faculty for using the M62
• Recognizes that Pope St. JPII had the authority to restrict, allow, and regulate the usage of the M62
• Benedict himself imposed certain restrictions which had to be met to celebrate M62
• It is up to the pope to determine the level of restriction for the M62
  • If a pope can grant they can also restrict (otherwise the grant would be unnecessary)

The conditions for the use of this Missal laid down by the previous documents Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei are now replaced as follows…

• Pope Benedict XVI lists multiple restrictions and conditions for the usage of the M62
• Pope St. JPII also previously offered conditions for usage (see below)

Pope St. John Paul II

Quattuor Abhinc Annos¹⁴:

Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions…

• Document reference above by Pope Benedict XVI
• Pope needed to grant permission to diocesan bishops
• Diocesan bishops were given the possibility of using an indult
• Limits usage to various conditions

Francisco Suarez S.J.

Defense Against the Errors of Anglicanism¹⁵:

When the king in his fourth article accuses the Catholic Church of novelty in that it presents the Eucharist to the laity in the appearances only of bread, he seems to be stuck in the same rut; for he relies on the fact that in its usage and rites the Church cannot add or subtract anything, which taken universally and without limitation has been shown by us to be contrary to reason and Scripture. For although the Church is not able to change things which are of the substance of the sacraments and were instituted by Christ, nevertheless things which pertain to the accidentals of the rite and to the manners of the users are capable of variation and can be changed by the authority of the Church according to the opportunity of times.

• Responding to the king of England who is saying that it’s wrong to restrict communion to one kind and other disciplinary issues
• The accidentals of the liturgy can change, not the substance
• The Church has this authority

Jungmann

The Mass of the Roman Rite¹⁶:

The change of custom [communion of on the hand to communion on the tongue] is contemporaneous with the transition from leavened to unleavened bread, and is probably related to it… At the synod of Rouen a further rule was established that at high Mass the priest was to give the Eucharist into the hands of the deacon and subdeacon… During the tenth and eleventh centuries this right was narrowed down to priests and deacons. Then it disappeared entirely…

• Communion received on the hand was an ancient practice
• Moved away from reception on the hand with the introduction of unleavened bread
• The Church had the authority to change this custom

Pope Pius XI

Casti Connubii¹⁷:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

• Private judgment must not be overrated or elevated above the Church’s authority
  • This doesn’t mean we cannot use any private judgment
  • There is a point where it becomes elevated to a sinful degree
• We cannot be said to only be required to obey in matters pertaining to solemn definitions
  • Non-infallible judgments and discipline cannot be presumed to be false
  • We must presume holiness and safety
• The Church, even in non-solemnly defined matters, are guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord

Pope Nicholas

Preposueramus Quidem¹⁸:

…[I]t is immediately clear that the judgments of the Apostolic See, than which there is no greater authority, cannot be handled by any other tribunal, nor is it permissible for any to sit in judgment upon its decision…

• Pope in the first millennium
• It is not permissible for any to sit in judgment upon a decision
• This applies to officially promulgated papal decisions

Limits to Papal Authority

1. The pope cannot change the Word of God (Dei Verbum 10).
2. The pope cannot add new revelation to the Word of God (ibid. 10)
3. The pope is not able to change the “substance of the sacraments…[which] were instituted by Christ.” (Suarez, referenced elsewhere)

Answering Objections

Responses taken directly from Mr. Lofton’s presentation

Didn’t Pope Benedict XVI say that which was once sacred cannot be entirely forbidden?

Benedict says that what was considered sacred before can’t be “all of a sudden entirely forbidden” but this does not mean that it can’t be gradually discontinued. It also doesn’t mean he is saying the pope can’t do this juridically, but is more likely speaking morally. He states: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even harmful.”

Doesn’t Monsignor Klaus Gamber argue the pope cannot abrogate the Missal of 62?

Gamber seems to take a view that contradicts Pope Benedict XVI, as he claims M69 is a new rite. He also thinks the pope can’t make major changes to the liturgy, which means, for Gamber, the M69 is possibly ultra vires. Gambler states: “Since there is no document that specifically assigns to the Apostolic See the authority to change, let alone to abolish the traditional liturgical rite; and since, furthermore, it can be shown that not a single predecessor of Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman liturgy, the assertion that the Holy See has the authority to change the liturgical rite would appear to be debatable, to say the least. At the same time, we can say that there is no question that the Holy See does have authority to approve and oversee the publication of liturgical books, and more generally, to approve and oversee local liturgical traditions.”

In the footnote for this comment, he states: “The following point is worth pondering: As already discussed, according to canon law, a person’s affiliation with a particular liturgical rite is determined by that person’s rite of baptism. Given that the liturgical reforms of Pope Paul VI created a de facto new rite, one could assert that those among the faithful who were baptized according to the traditional Roman rite have the right to continue following that rite; just as a priest who were ordained according to the traditional Ordo have the right to exercise the very rite that they were ordained to celebrate” (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background, p. 39).

Didn’t [then] Cardinal Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy say there are limits to papal power of the liturgy?

Here is the quote ¹⁹:

After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity… The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.

The M69 guards the “revealed Word” and serves “Sacred Tradition.” If one were to say it failed to do so, then Pope Benedict XVI celebrated something that failed Sacred Tradition.

Didn’t Pope Benedict XVI say the Missal of 1962 was never abrogated?

According to Pope Benedict XVI, the Missal of 1969 was never abrogated, but this does not mean it could not be restricted. He states: “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. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.”

Didn’t the pope have to take a papal oath promising to uphold tradition?

Various papal oaths were taken at certain periods in church history and some of them speak of the duty to preserve the liturgical discipline of the church. This is clearly to be understood as a general rule, not as a strict obligation, as numerous popes have modified liturgical discipline over the centuries. Also, if this were to be understood as a strict rule then the pope could not have unilaterally modified the creed with the filioque.

Summary

1. There are certain limits to papal authority over the liturgy
2. The pope has authority to change accidental features of the liturgy
3. The M62 is the same rite as the M69
4. The M62 and M69 do not differ substantially
5. The pope has the authority to discontinue the M62 in favor of the M69
6. The question of whether the pope should discontinue the M62 is another matter