Does Quo Primum state that the Mass cannot be changed away from the Triditine?

[ProVobis]

Even if so, the anathema is applied to false condemnation only. It is not formulated to be a prohibition of reciting the prayer aloud.

What does that mean?

The anathema presupposes that the Canon of the Mass had been designed to be said in a low tone. Forget the condemnation. Today the instructions are that everything be said out loud enough so that everyone in the back can hear. How this “raises one to the meditation of divine things” better baffles me. I don’t think anyone disputes that lights, incense, vestments, etc. also mentioned in the stated doctrine have this Trent-desired effect. You may call these (lights, incense, vestments, etc.) practices that any Pope can remove anytime he wants but it doesn’t change the underlying doctrine that they are capable of “raising one to the meditation of divine things.” But if you remove enough of them, what’s left that we can be so lifted? That was my point.

 

[ProVobis]

A similar saith/doith example would be the selling of indulgences. Is it valid (does it work)? Yes, the Church is free to distribute indulgences. Should we do it now? Absolutely not. I fully affirm that it is possible, but it’s still a terrible idea to do it in practice.

I hope this doesn’t mean the Church should ban indulgences altogether. After all, it’s one of the things that may bring people back to confession. (Both confession and communion are pre-requisites for plenary indulgences.)

 

[ProVobis]

The water mixed with wine may border on revealed doctrine anyway (again, as a part of sacramental theology). It’s certainly been discipline for a long time (tidbit: the water to dilute the win actually goes back to 1st century Jewish customs. To drink straight wine was a to a drunkard - to look for a quick drunk - so Jesus would have added water to his wine because they were having a formal - and liturgical - meal. We follow Jesus in not being drunks, so we dilute the wine. The theological aspect of the water and the blood came a little later. It’s another one of our practices that has double meanings).

A triple meaning if you add the fact that water and blood flowed from Christ’s body after the soldiers pierced His sides.

 

[SonCatcher]

What does that mean?

The anathema presupposes that the Canon of the Mass had been designed to be said in a low tone. Forget the condemnation. Today the instructions are that everything be said out loud enough so that everyone in the back can hear. How this “raises one to the meditation of divine things” better baffles me. I don’t think anyone disputes that lights, incense, vestments, etc. also mentioned in the stated doctrine have this Trent-desired effect. You may call these (lights, incense, vestments, etc.) practices that any Pope can remove anytime he wants but it doesn’t change the underlying doctrine that they are capable of “raising one to the meditation of divine things.” But if you remove enough of them, what’s left that we can be so lifted? That was my point.

The meaning is very simple.

Let’s go back to grammar school for a minute, shall we?

Canon IX.—If anyone saith, 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 vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema.

What is the action by which someone is to be anathema? “saith” - that is, by speaking (vocalizing a particular heretical opinion) is he anathematized. There is nothing in this about action.

What opinion is he anathema for expressing? “that the rite … is to be condemned” - basically, the person is anathematized for falsely condemning the rite of the Church.

The anathema is addressing a particular heretical view (as all anathemas do). It does not necessarily presuppose anything.

There is an anathema for saying that the Eucharist must be received under both species and another anathema for saying the Eucharist must only be received under one specie. Neither of those impacts the priest’s ability to choose whether to offer under both species nor my ability to choose how to receive.

 

[curlycool89]

I hope this doesn’t mean the Church should ban indulgences altogether. After all, it’s one of the things that may bring people back to confession. (Both confession and communion are pre-requisites for plenary indulgences.)

I never said that, I think you’re putting words in my mouth.

I said we shouldn’t *sell *indulgences, without denying that it can be done. The same way, I can say that I think the canon should be said out loud without *denying *that it can be said silently.

A triple meaning if you add the fact that water and blood flowed from Christ’s body after the soldiers pierced His sides.

That’s what I meant by water and the blood (cross-referenced to 1 John too).

There is an anathema for saying that the Eucharist must be received under both species and another anathema for saying the Eucharist must only be received under one specie. Neither of those impacts the priest’s ability to choose whether to offer under both species nor my ability to choose how to receive.

Exactly. The EF of course only allows people to receive under the species of bread and it is heretical to say that you must receive both. Allowing communicants to receive both in the OF though does not make you a heretic so long as you do not say that you must receive both. Sometimes the doith-saith line up perfectly, and sometimes they are not the same thing, but that does not mean they are diametrically opposed to each other (that would be a false dichotomy).

 

[japhy]

I never said that, I think you’re putting words in my mouth.

I don’t think ProVobis was saying you said that; I think he was guarding against reaching that conclusion based on what you did say.

 

[ProVobis]

Let’s go back to grammar school for a minute, shall we?

Canon IX.—If anyone saith,
​

Actually Trent used the “Si quis dixerit” language throughout. Dixerit is future perfect. “If anyone will have said…” might be a more accurate translation, though awkward sounding. Or is “saith” already future perfect? I don’t know.

However, my comments about presupposing that the parts of the canon and words of consecration had been designed to be partly low toned still stand. “Saith” or condemnation is not part of the clause.

…ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferuntur…

submitto, submittere, submisi, submissus - to let down, to set under, to lower
vox, vocis, voci, vocem, voce - voice

---

​

 

[SonCatcher]

Actually Trent used the “Si quis dixerit” language throughout. Dixerit is future perfect. “If anyone will have said…” might be a more accurate translation, though awkward sounding. Or is “saith” already future perfect? I don’t know.

However, my comments about presupposing that the parts of the canon and words of consecration had been designed to be partly low toned still stand. “Saith” or condemnation is not part of the clause.

submitto, submittere, submisi, submissus - to let down, to set under, to lower
vox, vocis, voci, vocem, voce - voice

---

No. As a dependent clause, those comments of presupposition do not stand on their own. Since you prefer to debate the Latin (which places me at an unfair disadvantage), you must make your whole argument from this:

Si quis dixerit … anathema sit.

The key is still what is said, regardless of conjugation. Unless you can explain in full, nauseating detail why Latin grammar necessitates the position that dependent clauses are superior in form than the sentence to which they are added, thus placing Latin at logical odds with every other language known.

 

[JReducation]

This is all very fine, but the answer is the same. Quo Primum is not about doctrine or morals. Therefore, no pope is bound by it. Whatever Trent said about the celebration of the mass does not bind any pope either. Councils and popes do not bind future popes.

The answer is that Quo Primum had to be followed while it was in effect. Once another pope revised the mass, the new pope’s revision must be accepted as valid, licit and authoritative, until another pope comes along.

Why make this so complicated for the person who asked a simple question?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[NetNuncio]

Wwwwhhoooooaaaaaaa folks…I think we fell off the truck a tad.

The purpose of Quo Primum has never to lock the Missal as it was then and there forever and ever Amen. Pius V was dealing with a Lutheran rebellion that was altering worship. He was dealing with civil authorities that wanted a hand in everything the Church did to cement their own power. He was reserving any change of the Missal to himself (and his successors). He himself added several feasts after the promulgation of Quo Primum.

If Pius thought he was forever cementing the Missal, never to be changed, he was a short-sighted idiot…and I don’t think he was.

 

[JReducation]

Wwwwhhoooooaaaaaaa folks…I think we fell off the truck a tad.

The purpose of Quo Primum has never to lock the Missal as it was then and there forever and ever Amen. Pius V was dealing with a Lutheran rebellion that was altering worship. He was dealing with civil authorities that wanted a hand in everything the Church did to cement their own power. He was reserving any change of the Missal to himself (and his successors). He himself added several feasts after the promulgation of Quo Primum.

If Pius thought he was forever cementing the Missal, never to be changed, he was a short-sighted idiot…and I don’t think he was.

You are absolutely right. But there are some people, especially among radical traditionalists who present Quo Primum as an infallible statement and an eternal law. They hang on to the way that St. Pius worded it, but as you say, there was an historical context to it and a target audience, as is the case with every encyclical. But this one, was not about dogma or morals. It was about unifying the mass for the Latin Church.

As you lay, St. Pius had no intention of locking in the mass for all eternity. His greatest challenge came from his own Master General. St. Pius, being a faithful Dominican yielded that the Dominicans were not bound by it. They could continue with their own rite. Of course this opened the door for the Carmelite Rite, Cathusian Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite and the major religious orders to insist on keeping their form of the Roman mass rather than Pius’ form: Franciscans, Benedictines, Jesuits, and I believe the Discalced Carmelites as well. The Church had to yield to all of the major orders, who at that time dominated the scene. Parishes, as we know them today, did not exist yet.

But people don’t know about the issues with the Protestants and the mass, the many forms and rites in the Latin Church and the power and pressure that the major religious orders used to influence St.Pius in order to pass on the Tridentine missal. It’s a pity when people don’t know the how story. They tend to treat the other pieces almost dismissively.

Fraternally,

Br. JR,FFV

 

[CreekCrawler]

The form of the Mass comes under disciplinary law. It is not doctrinal.
As long as the words of consecration are not changed and the priest receives Communion anything else in the Mass can be changed.
In matters of disciplinary law no Pope can bind a future Pope.

But the words of consecration HAVE changed haven’t they ?

traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/01/28/latin-mass-and-novus-ordo-mass-consecration-formula/

Here is a better quote from Pope Pius V on the subject…

“Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other Churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world”, exceptions were allowed from the start…By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it…No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

He says anyone that changes it would be under the wrath of God, Peter and Paul… seems binding to me.

 

[pnewton]

He says anyone that changes it would be under the wrath of God, Peter and Paul… seems binding to me.

It was binding on everyone at the time.

The Mass remains valid forever.

Two sentences, two different point that are not grammatically joined.