1967 letter sent to Pope Paul VI

[Ultima_Ratio]

The following letter was sent to Pope Paul VI by Fr. Depauw in August on 1967. Two years ealier Paul VI had blessed him in his work as the spokesman for the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, a movement formed in response to the chaos that sprung immdediately from the Second Vatican Council. At the time of his meeting with Paul VI (1965) the Pope admitted that the Church was going throuhg “one of the gravest crises in its history”. As he says in the letter written two years after Paul VI made that statement:* “To say that it has gone from bad to worse would be the understatement of the century”.*

This letter, written by a fearless Priest who is encouraging the Pope to do what needs to be done to stop that chaos, gives a view into the state of the Church just two years after the close of Vatican II.

The following is the introduction to the letter, following by a a link to the complete text

Introduction: This letter was originally sent, without any publicity, as a private communication between a priest and the Supreme Pontiff who, two years earlier, had blessed and commissioned him as leader of the CATHOLIC TRADITIONALIST MOVEMENT.

Only when, after waiting for three months, the C.T.M. was informally notified that no formal “fatherly reply” could be expected, was it decided to make the letter public, both in printing and on tape, under the title “Be Thou Peter.”

Soon translated worldwide into Dutch, French, German, Italian and Spanish, the 1967-letter soon became, and still stands today, as the unequalled “anguished cry” of the post-Vatican II “Suffering Church.”

Here’s a link to the complete text of the letter titled: BE THOU PETER!

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Here’s a link to an excellent sermon given by Fr. Depauw in 1974, in which he explains the reason for Pius V revising the missal after the Council of Trent. He explains that, over the years, various Priests and Bishops would add certain prayers to this or that saint who they had a particular devotion to, etc. The end result was that, although the canon was the same everywhere, there were variations in other parts of the Mass. Pius V was asked to unify the Mass by creating one single missal for all to use. The scholars researched the history of the Mass, and in the end removed some of the additional prayers that had been added thereby restoring the Mass to its original form. Once restored, it was this missal that was canonized in perpetuity. Pius V did not creat a new Mass, or a new canon. The same canon already existed everywhere. All that was revised were certain prayers that had been added over the enturies.

Here’s a link to the sermon: latinmass-ctm.org/audiosermons/audiosermons.htm

 

[Filioque]

The Venerable Rite that was codified by Pope St. Pius V has never been the only Catholic Rite, Eastern or Western. While it should maintain it’s place among the Legitimate Rites that the Catholic Church has had the great favor from heaven to grant us, it should not be elevated above or relegated below any other legitimate Rite.

Fr. DePauw may have had some very good points, but he was not without his controversies, even among “Traditionalists”.

 

[ProVobis]

The Venerable Rite that was codified by Pope St. Pius V has never been the only Catholic Rite, Eastern or Western.

Actually he “codified” all Rites in existence prior to 1370 AD. (200 years before 1570AD)

 

[Filioque]

Actually he “codified” all Rites in existence prior to 1370 AD. (200 years before 1570AD)

While the argument that Pope St. Pius V allowed for the codification of the Mozarabic, Millanses, Norbertine, Dominican, Carthusian and other Rites as well as uses of the West, by not supressing rites older than 200 years of age, Quo Primum was addressed at Western Liturgics. Eastern Rites were not addressed at the time, even though there existed Eastern Liturgies in Southern Italy, and others in communion with Rome elsewhere. It would be stretching the point to say he directly codified “all” rites, by simply allowing those in continous use for over 200 years to remain intact as codification.

 

[ProVobis]

Eastern Rites were not addressed at the time, even though there existed Eastern Liturgies in Southern Italy, and others in communion with Rome elsewhere.

So where were the Eastern Rites addressed? Seems as if those Rites and Rites that have seen been adopted by the Church (Anglican Use, for example) have gone basically unscathed by the councils and promulgations and decrees. Is the East given some special privileges? They get to keep their traditions but the West can’t? Something’s not right here.

 

[Filioque]

So where were the Eastern Rites addressed? Seems as if those Rites and Rites that have seen been adopted by the Church (Anglican Use, for example) have gone basically unscathed by the councils and promulgations and decrees. Is the East given some special privileges? They get to keep their traditions but the West can’t? Something’s not right here.

Your premise is false. It is you that proposes that the Eastern Rites are addressed by Quo Primum, I maintain that the Bull only addresses the Latin Rite. No the East does not have special privileges, they have equal rights (or at least should) I know many Latin Rite Catholics who would not have assisted at the Holy Sacrifice after the introduction of the OF had it not been for the Eastern Rites. Unfortunately many Latin Rite Catholics seem ignorant of the history of Eastern Rite Catholics, as well as see the East as Second Class, and unequal. Your statement that the Eastern Rites get to keep their traditions and the West can’t shows a poor understanding of the history of the East. As far back as the Pontificates of Popes Pius IX and even more-so under Pope Pius XI and XII, efforts have been made to restore to the Eastern Rites truly Eastern Catholic traditions. Over the past five centuries Latin Rite practices, were imposed on many Eastern Catholics that were quite different than the traditions that they were given by their traditions. The treatment of the Eastern Rite Catholics both prior to the Council, and by many Latin Rite Catholics who after the Council used them as a lesser fo the two evils, has been deplorable, and a bit less than that of Christian Charity and Brotherhood.

As to the Anglican Use, the process for the approval of the Use was not a simple rubber stamp. The AU people went through many drafts and the Current Liturgical Books will probably not be the final approved liturgy. Priests in the AU are either Roman Catholic priests who have been granted faculties to celebrate in the use, or were former Anglican/Episcopal clergy some who had earned doctorates in Theology in their former sects but were required to wait a minimum of two years as a lay Catholic before they could apply for admission to Holy Orders, and even then were required to complete a Catholic formation program. So it was not just a matter of bending over backward to accommodate them.

Even if the majority of Bishops throughout the world have not fully implemented the Motu Proprio, or followed the direct instructions of Pope Paul VI, or Pope John Paul II, that does not mean that the EF was ever suppressed. I feel you are blaming the wrong people, and are just as out of step as the Ultra Left, who decide for themselves what is and is not representative as the true expression of what it means to be Catholic. What does however define in part a true expression of the Catholic Faith is the fidelity and filial devotion we have the the Vicar of Christ. While we ourselves cannot set ourselves up to be judge and jury of the Holy See, we do have the right to take our concerns to the Holy See if our Local Ordinary or even National Bishop’s Conferences are instructing us in a manner that we think is not una cum the Holy See.

Pope Benedict has spelled out quite clearly that The EF was never suppressed. He has written extensively about the problems with the manner that many implemented, or rather mis-implemented Liturgical changes in the wake of the Council, as well as issues surrounding any number of other matters that needed to be addressed. What he has also implemented was a manner which we as Catholics, lay or clergy who have been denied our patrimony, or where obstacles have been placed an official manner of reporting, and resolving the issues. When our local Ordinary ignores us, or when they ignore the Pope, we can direct our concerns to the Holy See. We cannot set ourselves or any group of dissitent clergy, (left or right wing) as judges of the Holy See, to do so is a breach of not just current Canon Law, but also the Pre-Conciliar Canon Law.

 

[ProVobis]

It is you that proposes that the Eastern Rites are addressed by Quo Primum, I maintain that the Bull only addresses the Latin Rite.

Can you (or anyone else) please provide some evidence for this assertion. I’m ignoring the rest of your post until this is resolved.

 

[Filioque]

Sorry for the delay, I could not justify corporal labor on Sunday, and as about 80% of my books are boxed and in storage, I could not access them until today. No need to go to the gym now…

I did however want to confirm my memory, as my Pre-Vatican II Seminary formation and texts are like myself not always at my fingertips.

All of the Liturgical Historians, and commentators I have read through today were printed prior to the Council, so should suffice as authorative. I have ommited from the list Ellard, and Parsh because the SSPX, and the Sede crowd refuse to recognize them, and brand them as modernists, (which I don’t agree with) Eberhardt, Fortescue, and O’Connell, don’t mention Quo Primum at all. I’ve checked different editions of the last two in order to confirm that they did not comment on it in one edition and omit or edit it out of another. Archdale King, and Josef Jungmann, both do mention Quo Primum, and state that it was addressed to the clergy of the Roman Rite, no mention at all of the Eastern Rite Clergy. To that is added the common practice of the day of referring to all Archbishops in the West as Patriarchs, and the specific naming of the Eastern Sees when an Encyclical or Bull was intended for them. I don’t recall Garanger mentioning Quo Primum, but as soon as I’ve found that set, I’ll look.

What was rather revealing and something that I did forget was that there was much discussion of the sad state of the Liturgy in Western Europe at the time, that the discepencies required that a copy of the Missal from the Roman Curia was sent for and delivered to Trent for the Council Fathers to review, and that many abberations including Marian additions that had been inserted into the Gloria, as well as other items that the Fathers saw as abuses were elemintated from the Missal published by Pope St. Pius V. It is also telling that there was a second edition of the Missal of Pope St. Pius V, during his lifetime, (he died two years after Quo Primum and the first edition of the Missal was published) because there were additional corrections that did not make it into the first Missal published by the great Saint. I don’'t see it in the one volume abridgement of the Missarum Sollemnia, so I’ll have to add the two volume set to my search, as I believe the Canon in the First edition included the prayers for the HRE, and the local monach after those of the Pope, Local Ordinary, and all faithful bishops. My 1662 Missale Romanum does not retain the commemoration in the Canon, but the Missale Ambrosianum of 1703 does. So I’m hoping to find the two volume set, and see if there is more detail.

In short, of the 12 Pre-Vatican II Liturgical commentators or historians I’ve looked at since you asked, all having good standing in the more conservative of the Traditionalist Communities, only two so far have even mentioned Quo Primum, and those two state it was directed to the clergy of the Roman Rite.

 

[Filioque]

Sorry, just found my 1632 edition of the Missale Romanum which still does have the local monarch in the canon, after the Local Ordinary. the 1662 and the 1750 editions have ommitted it. Somehow the earlier edition was misplaced among the books on Sacred Scripture rather than Sacred Liturgy.

The point being that even after Quo Primum forbid modifications in the Liturgy, and as some (no implication that the OP is among them) uber-Traditionalists hold the Canon to be unalterable. If the King can be included in the Canon of the Mass, in the Memento, and then later dropped, either the Pope, and competent authorities in the Sacred Congregation of Rites have the ability to modify the Rites of the Church, or they acted outside of their authority. If the inviolate Canon can and has been modified, and established and licit Rites can be supressed, then any Catholic Rites can be (by competent authority) imposed or supressed, including the Pian Missal, (which D.G. was never legally supressed).

 

[Filioque]

Can you (or anyone else) please provide some evidence for this assertion. I’m ignoring the rest of your post until this is resolved.

You can continue to ignore posts, I’ve been though my storage room and plucked out a few more books from respected Liturgists from before VII, Dom Cabrol in The Mass of the Western Rites only mentions that Quo Primum Exists, but he does have very interesting charts and writeups about the multiplicity of Rites over 200 years old that were suppressed, as well as should be expected those retained, (since the book focuses on the Western Rites, only a short mention of the antiquity of the Eastern Rites having come down from the Apostles just as the Western Rites are attributed to St. Peter, and St. John.

Dom Cabrol does include in the charts not only the Mass as it existed from the 5th to 9th Centuries the Modifications (suppressed and added rites) of the 9th to 13th Centuries, and then the 13th to the 20th Centuries. There were more additions and supressions to the venerable Liturgy by Pope St. Pius V than I would have expected.

As to Quo Primum Cabrol only mentions that it brought about the Missal, after his chapter on the changes to the Rite that Pope Pius V imposed to the Missal of the Roman Curia,and nothing more. However Le Brun in his Explitation litterale, historiqe et dogmatique des prieres et des ceremonies de la Messe One of the most treasured at Econe does specifically state that it was directed at the Latin Clergy. While Msgr. Duchesne also supports this, we can ignore him because some of his works were on the Index. Fortescue and Brinktrine both ignore Quo Primum. Much like Pro Vobis has ignored the request for support that Quo Primum was addressed to the entire Church and not just the Latin Rite. Fr. Gihr and Cardinal Schuster both speak of it in passing as enforcing the Rite among the Latin Clergy too. I’ll have to get back to you on Cardinal Schuster, since his is a six volume work, and I did not read through the set in order.

 

[ProVobis]

You can continue to ignore posts.

I might have missed some but I didn’t ignore your posts. I just didn’t know how to respond to you.

You’ve gone to a lot of work, I’ll grant you that, but you still haven’t provided any evidence that the Easterners were exempt from Quo Primum. Are you going to tell us they were exempt from the teachings of Trent as well and that Trent wasn’t an ecumenical council? I hope not.

 

[Chatter163]

Post #12:

I might have missed some but I didn’t ignore your posts. I just didn’t know how to respond to you.

Hmmm…

Post #8:

Can you (or anyone else) please provide some evidence for this assertion. I’m ignoring the rest of your post until this is resolved.

 

[ProVobis]

Post #12:

Hmmm…

Post #8:

Hmmm, shmmmm. I didn’t say I ignored his entire post. I have to admit, though, the longer the post, the less inclined I am to digest anything past the first or second paragraph thoroughly, especially if I have a problem with something in the first sentence or two. Do you read and digest every single word or idea that’s presented in every post?

That is not to say that there are not some very gifted writers on this forum. There are.

By the way, on some internet boards, you get points for thumbs down. So I don’t see that as offensive perhaps as you might have wished it to be.

 

[Filioque]

Pro Vobis:

Frater:

Well either I misread your what you were asking for, or you’ve changed the rules. However I never posted that the Eastern Catholic Church was exempt from Trent, although they have been free to use Greek terms, like metousiosis and not been forced adopt such Latin terms as Transubstantiation because they are equivalent terms. But even here we can’t mix apples with oranges, because part of Trent was Dogmatic, and aimed at the entire Church, and other aspects of the Council were disiplinary and effected only the Western Church in the battle against those areas that truly did need reform, like the poor formation of priests and the abuses among the episcopacy. There were also non-dogmatic issues with regard to Protestantism that were discussed.

My reading of your posting is the assertion that the imposition of the New Missal and Breviary after The Council of Trent by Pope St. Pius V with the Bulls Quod a nobis and Quo Primum were an action that could not be changed. However while it would be mistaken to take either the position that any succeeding Pope could not suppress any of the rites imposed by a previous Pope, or the position that Pope Paul VI ever did so with the EF, and all the surrounding rites in the Breviarium, Rituale, and other little known liturgical books (outside of Seminaries, Monastic Houses and Rectories) like the Martyrology, Caeremoniale etc.

Back to the topics at hand however. The charge is…

Originally Posted by ProVobis So where were the Eastern Rites addressed? Seems as if those Rites and Rites that have seen been adopted by the Church (Anglican Use, for example) have gone basically unscathed by the councils and promulgations and decrees. Is the East given some special privileges? They get to keep their traditions but the West can’t? Something’s not right here.

Quo Primum seems according to the general consensus of those Liturgical authors prior to Vatican II as not being a Universal Decree, but just that imposed on the Latin Church, therefore having no effect on the East.

With regard to the assertion,

Is the East given some special privileges? They get to keep their traditions but the West can’t? Something’s not right here.

I agree with the quote, but from a different perspective. The Eastern Rites have had Latin Rituals imposed on them for centuries, it was so bad in fact that Blessed Pope Pius IX initiated an attempt to purge the Eastern Rites of Latin Customs forced upon them by various Latin Prelates, Even on the eve of Vatican II many Latinizations that had been unfairly imposed on them were in the process of being removed. It was a task that took over 100 years, but had been unfairly imposed on Eastern Catholics for around five hundred years. Not a special privilege from my perspective. Sadly this process of restoration of the Eastern Rites has been undone in some areas, the Coptic, Maronite and Assyrian (Chaldean) Catholic Churches in many places have been pressured into changing their venerable liturgies to mimic those of the Newer Latin customs. The Ukranians, to an extent the Melkite, Russians and the Ruthenians have been more careful to resist a repete of the past.

In summary, as I do tend to wander. Infallibly defined Dogmatic pronouncements of an Ecumenical Council do apply to Eastern and Western Churches. The Rites of an individual Church, and matters subject to an Individual Church are not Dogmatic, and would not apply to another Rite or Church. Quo Primum and **Quod a nobis ** are both directed at the Latin Church, as are the documents that impose the Martyrology, Pontifical, Ritual etc in the Latin Church, or the variants among Religious Orders and the Ambrosian as well as the Mozarabic Rites in the Latin Church.

Now if you have some dogmatic statement or a reliable resource that would assert that Quo Primum or the manner in which the Latin Rite is offered is something that influences or imposes anything on the manner in which the Eastern Churches adopt, maintain or suppress Liturgical Rites, I’d like to read it. As this thread originally was about Fr. DePauw’s stance (He being one of the first to change the emphasis of Quo Primum and elevate it to heights not previously claimed) I think that it is germane that some of the errors (not dogmatic at this point) of the Traditionalist movement be discussed. There are enough reasons why the OF should be retained. There was admittedly an attempt to erase the EF from the face of the earth (illegally) by some bishops, and hip, happening, groovy sort of clergy and their followers. But we should not have to over blow the importance of either Quo Primum or other non-dogmatic statements to make the point, which Pope Benedict and others have already confirmed, that the OF was never legally supressed.

 

[Filioque]

Hmmm, shmmmm. I didn’t say I ignored his entire post. I have to admit, though, the longer the post, the less inclined I am to digest anything past the first or second paragraph thoroughly, especially if I have a problem with something in the first sentence or two. Do you read and digest every single word or idea that’s presented in every post?

That is not to say that there are not some very gifted writers on this forum. There are.

By the way, on some internet boards, you get points for thumbs down. So I don’t see that as offensive perhaps as you might have wished it to be.

While you posted this to Chatter, I do read the entire posts before I reply. If I find something to be problematic in the first sentence or two even better, as it is a starting point.

Having been through the Formation program at two SSPX seminaries, Econe and Ridgefield, I am familiar with many of the distortions and the authenticly Catholic arguments that both clergy and laity among Traditionalist Cathoics have been taught. As in my previous long posting, I don’t think we need the distortions to prove the value of the EF. Nor do I think we should elevate the Missal of Pope Pius V above that of any other approved Rite, as if it was superior. Prior to Vatican II we were taught that the Mass was of infinite value, regardless of the Rite that was used or the solemnity that was observed. The host and chalice consecrated in a Hut in Mission Territory was the same Jesus as the Host and Chalice consecrated at a Solemn Papal Mass. The effects of the Mass did not depend on the holiness of the priest, or his rank or rite. East is not superior or inferior to the West, nor the West to the East.

 

[ProVobis]

Let’s go back to the beginning. In post #5 (ALMOST A MONTH AGO) you stated after I merely reflected on the 200 years in Quo Primum:

While the argument that Pope St. Pius V allowed for the codification of the Mozarabic, Millanses, Norbertine, Dominican, Carthusian and other Rites as well as uses of the West, by not supressing rites older than 200 years of age, Quo Primum was addressed at Western Liturgics. Eastern Rites were not addressed at the time…

(Again,) please show some evidence (websites, books, etc.) for this claim. And please make it short. This is not a forum on the Eastern Rites.

 

[Filioque]

I have given you the Liturgical historians and commentators who felt the Quo Primum was worth mentioning, and that among them those who went further than just a mention of the Bull, commented that it was addressed to the Latin Clergy. I’ve read nowhere (except your comments) that the Eastern Church was addressed by the Bull. If you have something from a reliable source, I’d like to read it. I’m always ready and willing to learn. I’ll check for a reply after I return from the EF Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

I have given you the Liturgical historians and commentators who felt the Quo Primum was worth mentioning, and that among them those who went further than just a mention of the Bull, commented that it was addressed to the Latin Clergy. I’ve read nowhere (except your comments) that the Eastern Church was addressed by the Bull. If you have something from a reliable source, I’d like to read it. I’m always ready and willing to learn. I’ll check for a reply after I return from the EF Mass.

Okay, I’ll try to work with you on this. This is what I’ve gotten so far:

As the great liturgical scholar Fr. Adrian Fortescue wrote, this Mass is “the most venerable in all Christendom, **with a history of unbroken use far longer than that of any Eastern rite, there being no doubt that the essential parts of the Mass are of Apostolic origin.” **Thus, the Mass that Pope St. Pius V was confirming in Quo Primum was not some new construct like the Novus Ordo Missae, but was essentially the Apostolic Mass of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome. Nor is it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern rites, but it is the UNIVERSAL rite of the Church, the rite of the Roman See, the Papal See.

Quo Primum is no “merely ecclesiastical law” (Can. 11 [1983]) that can be revoked, but has been enacted into law and declared Ex Cathedra to be irreformable, and is therefore a solemnly defined moral doctrine which is also of itself infallible and irreformable (DB 1829). Quo Primum has been declared to be infallibly declared to be irreformable because the rite of Mass codified in the Tridentine Missal is the “received and approved rite of the Roman Church” that has been “handed down by the Holy Roman Church.” The status of Quo Primum, therefore, pertains to Divine Law insofar as they constitute a particular application of the Divine Law. – Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, 1997).

Moreover, according to the common opinion of Catholic theologians throughout the centuries, any pope who “wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition” would become a schismatic, not to be obeyed. (For example, Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), S.J., “Most Exalted and Pius Doctor,” De Charitate, Disputatio XII de Schismate, sectio 1.) The Novus Ordo Missae is no less than a change in the entire structure of the Mass. If it were true that another pope or council could set aside the solemn decrees of a former pope or council, there would be no Apostolic authority in the Church, and we could not believe Christ’s promise to be with the Church “all days” until the end of time. Any pope or council that attempts to set aside the authoritative teachings of a previous pope or council is acting in defiance and disobedience to the authority of the Church. “We need once again to take into account that these various conciliar regulations [of the dogmatic Council of Trent on the Mass, Chapter XXII] do not only have a disciplinary character. They are based on a doctrinal, theological foundation that involves the Faith itself.” (Alfons Cardinal Sticker, May 1999.

alcazar.net/quo_primum.pdf

However, I’m still unable to find where the 200-yr rule of Quo Primum excludes the Eastern Rites. And that’s what I assumed you claimed. Tell me my assumption was wrong and I’ll drop my request for evidence of the same.

 

[ProVobis]

However, I’m still unable to find where the 200-yr rule of Quo Primum excludes the Eastern Rites. And that’s what I assumed you claimed. Tell me my assumption was wrong and I’ll drop my request for evidence of the same.

I’ll also drop my request if you meant that the schismatic Eastern Rites were exempted from the 200-yr old rule. Or from any rites formally adopted by the Church since Quo Primum.Those would be obvious exceptions in my book.