Then what about canons 8 and 9 of Session XXII?
Some points of information:
"If anyone says that masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema."
Weren't some priests told not to celebrate Mass alone for some time? You can't have a "communal meal" without other people present...
While there has been an emphasis on greater (and more visible, if you will) participation of the congregation in the OF Mass, I am not aware of any prohibition of a priest celebrating the Mass alone. When I was a parish business administrator (1999 - 2003) I several times made arrangements for a visiting priest to say Mass for himself (and by himself) at the church. That I didn't need to arrange for an altar server, or make calls to have someone else attend surprised me, because of my pre VII experiences. Where I grew up, if nobody had arrived for a daily Mass (I'm thinking of the 5:30 am - 6:30 am time frame especially - I'm thinking a carry over from when people fasted from midnight and there were many early morning Masses to facilitate people receiving Holy Communion) - the priest would not start Mass until he got on the phone and roused up at least one other person to be there. I have been under the impression that there was a pre VII prohibition against a priest saying Mass by himself, without at least one other (i.e., an altar server), but I really don't know, and I would think the rubrics made provision for special circumstances (i.e., a desert hermit, a traveling priest, etc.).
Also, the citation from Trent doesn't really comment on a priest celebrating Mass alone, it comments on the priest alone communicating sacramentally, which could be done in the presence of a large congregation. Pope St. Pius X emphasised the importance and value of frequent reception of communion by the faithful (they being properly disposed, of course), in many writings. Pope Venerable Pius XII, in 1953, revised the pre communion fasting regulations from a total fast from midnight, including water, to a fast of 3 hours from solid food and alcohol and 1 hour from non-alcoholic beverages, with water being permitted any time. While this was initially in response to the allowance of evening Masses (i.e., a Mass after noon, which had previously been prohibitied), it's application was made universal by the Holy Father, certainly in part to encourage more frequent communion by the faithful. I don't beleive a proper understanding and application of the rubrics and theology of the 1970 missal contradict Trent any more than the initiatives of Pius X and Pius XII to encourage more frequent communion by the congregation.
"If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema."
Were not some Catholics led to believe, even at times by bishops, that the Latin Mass had been abrogated, and that only the new vernacular Mass was allowed? Moreover, the words of consecration were said in a loud tone after the promulgation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI. And communion under one species became communion under both the Body and Blood of Our Lord (see Sess. XXI, can. 1 and 2).
I concurr that not just some, but almost all Catholics were let to believe, yes
even at times by bishops that the 1962 missal had been abrogated and that the 1970 missal was the only authorized Liturgy to be celebrated in the parishes. The "new" Mass (i.e., the 1970 missal, the Mass of Paul VI, the Ordinary Form, the Novus Ordo, whatever you wish ...) is not a
vernacular Mass, it is, in fact, a Latin Mass, whose rubrics permit it to be said in the vernacular, using an approved translation. The liturgical documents of VII themselves emphasised the value of latin in the liturgy of the Church, and all official liturgical books are published in latin, then, the Vatican can authorize an approved translation into a vernacular. There is no official, authoritative Church pronouncement that
mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only, and that the Church at the present time permits use of the vernacular does not contradict Trent. It must be remembered that the liturgy was first mostly in greek (and perhaps other languages, such as aramaic, which was the language Our Lord spoke, and may have been the language used to institute the Mass. When the liturgical language migrated from greek to latin, latin was the vernacular of the day.
In the 1970 missal of Paul VI water is still mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice. I've never seen this not done.
Likewise, though when a Mass is celebrated according to the 1970 missal all the texts are usually spoken audible (and in large churches, without electronic sound amplification they are still mostly inaudible to the congregation), Trent doesn't say they
have to be inaudible, just that it is wrong to say they can't be.
As to Holy Communion under both species - Trent simply reaffirms the teaching of the Church that one receives the fullness of the sacrament by receiving under one species only (either the Host or the Chalice). At was at that time the liturgical discipline of the Church that the faithfull receive only the host, a discipline challanged by protestants, which is why Trent addressed the issue I presume. In earlier times in tradition Communion was administered generally under both forms, with the faithful having the privilage of dispensing with the cup. That is, until Pope Gelasius (492 - 496), required that Holy Communion be received under both species, to combat the Manichean herasey. That regulation remained in effect until the Council of Constance in 1414, a period of over 900 years. The missal of 1970 returns to the more ancient tradition of allowing communion to be administered under both forms (but it is not required that the chalice be administered to the lay faithful, and often is not), and the faithful have the privilage of dispensing with the cup (in my observation about 40% of communicants at Sunday Mass do so). Whether that is a good or bad thing is another topic, but it in no way contradicts what Trent said, and the Church continues to teach that one receives the fullness of the sacrament under either species alone.
