Pope St. Pius V-Quo Primum

[T_More]

Here is what Pope St. Pius V wrote in his papal bull, Quo Primum, about the Tridentine Mass (bold mine):

"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 Missal. **

"Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain . . . that this present document **cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force **… [The complete Apostolic Constitution “Quo Primum” of Pope St. Pius V (July 14, 1570)].

Can someone explain to a newly minted, traditional leaning Roman Catholic how Pope Paul VI was able to institute the Novus Ordo with this bull put in place by Pope St. Pius V?

 

[Warloff]

Quo Primum is not binding on Popes. The Pope is free to makes changes to the liturgy. If this wasn’t the case than the liturgy could not have been amended in the 17th century when changes were made to the canon.

If Saint Pope Pius V had the power to suppress various liturgies and make binding a particular liturgy on the whole Western Church so did Pope Paul VI.

 

[ProVobis]

Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have honored Quo Primum.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Quo Primum is not binding on Popes. The Pope is free to makes changes to the liturgy. If this wasn’t the case than the liturgy could not have been amended in the 17th century when changes were made to the canon.

If Saint Pope Pius V had the power to suppress various liturgies and make binding a particular liturgy on the whole Western Church so did Pope Paul VI.

But Pope Paul suppressed no liturgy. =/

He essentially made a new Missal available for use and “normative” but he did not suppress, illegalize or abrogate the 1570/1962 Missal. Nor did he suppress, illegalize or abrogate any other Rite, Form, etc.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

But Pope Paul suppressed no liturgy. =/

He essentially made a new Missal available for use and “normative” but he did not suppress, illegalize or abrogate the 1570/1962 Missal. Nor did he suppress, illegalize or abrogate any other Rite, Form, etc.

What about the rites associated with the minor orders and subdiaconate? (Note, this is an honest question, not a disagreement).

 

[Alfonsus]

Don’t forget, the same words are used when Pope Pius V promulgated the Roman Breviary. This did not bind Pope St. Pius X when he abrogated Pius V breviary (yes, he abrogated it, not merely instituted a new one).

 

[ProVobis]

Don’t forget, the same words are used when Pope Pius V promulgated the Roman Breviary. This did not bind Pope St. Pius X when he abrogated Pius V breviary (yes, he abrogated it, not merely instituted a new one).

Same words? Did he incur the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul then?

 

[Warloff]

But Pope Paul suppressed no liturgy. =/

He essentially made a new Missal available for use and “normative” but he did not suppress, illegalize or abrogate the 1570/1962 Missal. Nor did he suppress, illegalize or abrogate any other Rite, Form, etc.

That’s correct. Pope Benedict has shown us that the old mass was never abrogated. However, Paul VI did make the Novus Ordo the normative mass for the Western Church as opposed to the old Mass. That said if Paul VI had felt like suppressing the Old Mass he would have had that power.

 

[tradcathusa]

TMore, good question, I asked myself how he could do it years ago when the mass changed. I lived through the “spring time of Vatican II”. It has been a frozen wasteland, Now we have been blessed with Pope Benedict, gloriously reigning,he has fiinally said that Paul VI did not abrogate the mass. I am so glad. If you were an old timer like me, you would have been told over and over again it was abrogated. Now we have a brave Holy Father that has had the courage to be a great leader of Christianity. I wish he was 30 years old. If he gets the SSPX back in union with the church he will have done a great thing to have set things right for when he is gone. God Bless Benedict. I am so happy I have lived to see the day we got the Emancipation Proclamation 5 years ago and hopefully to see the SSPX back in the Church

 

[ProVobis]

That said if Paul VI had felt like suppressing the Old Mass he would have had that power.

He also has the power to excommunicate everyone but himself. So what’s the point of this statement?

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Same words? Did he incur the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul then?

Unfortunately the Church no longer speaks so directly and clearly. Would to God that she recovers Her voice and states clearly what Her doctrines are, from Whence comes Her authority, and what the penalties are in ignoring Her holy voice.

• PAX

 

[Alfonsus]

Same words? Did he incur the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul then?

Of course! He became a saint as punishment

 

[MarkThompson]

Quo Primum is not binding on Popes. The Pope is free to makes changes to the liturgy. If this wasn’t the case than the liturgy could not have been amended in the 17th century when changes were made to the canon.

If Saint Pope Pius V had the power to suppress various liturgies and make binding a particular liturgy on the whole Western Church so did Pope Paul VI.

Exactly. Just like Quo Primum, Pius V’s bull promulgating his breviary, Quod a nobis, (1568) stated that it would be valid “in perpetuity,” and called down the indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius (“the wrath of Almighty God, and of His blessed apostles Peter and Paul”) upon anyone whomsoever who should dare to alter it. St. Pius X’s response? Psalterii ordinem, qualis in Breviario Romano hodie est, abolemus ejusque usum … omnino interdicimus (“We abolish the ordo of the Psalter, such as today appears in the Roman Breviary, and we utterly forbid its use”; Divino afflatu, 1911).

More to the point, Quo primum and Quod a nobis, despite language saying, basically, “no changes of any sort ever by anybody,” were never intended to bind popes or to freeze the liturgy in time. Indeed we see that the missal was almost constantly revised to include new feasts and their respective propers and prayers, to add stuff like the sequence Stabat Mater, which had been stripped out at Trent and was restored in 1727 by Pope Benedict XIII, and so on. Pius V himself altered the missal by adding the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary in 1571, just one year after he issued Quo primum. The reality is that the language about not changing anything in the missal was mostly directed at printers.

As I once wrote in an earlier thread on Quo primum:
it doesn’t bind popes and ecumenical councils of the Church. It didn’t bind Pius V when he changed the Mass a year after Quo Primum, it didn’t bind Benedict XIII or John XXIII when they changed the Mass, and it would not have bound Paul VI.

The issues that seem to be giving you a hard time are ones of degree, not kind. Changes to the Mass are changes to the Mass. Quo Primum does not say, the Mass is sacrosanct and inviolable, except that small changes are okay. It says, the Mass is sacrosanct and inviolable, and no change or any sort is ever permitted to be made by anyone. So if someone says, “I refuse to celebrate the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary; Pius V violated Quo Primum when he added it to the missal,” what’s the answer? You have three possibilities: (1) okay, technically you’re right, the feast can’t be part of the calendar, (2) no, Quo Primum doesn’t apply to that kind of change, or (3) no, Pius V was entitled to change the missal in that respect notwithstanding Quo Primum.

(1) is for crazy people; (2) doesn’t work because Quo Primum says no changes of any kind, it doesn’t say you can add feasts, change prayers, and so on, just don’t do too much of it. So the correct response has to be (3). But (3) implies what I and others have said – that Quo Primum simply does not bind the Pope. It’s not binding in small changes, and it’s not binding in big changes. A pope can make minor changes to the missal, and a pope can make major changes to the missal.

 

[ProVobis]

Of course! He became a saint as punishment

I’m having trouble finding that 1668 document issued by St. Pius V to substantiate your claim that the wording was the same as Quo Primum’s. I’ll look for it tomorrow.

 

[ProVobis]

Of course! He became a saint as punishment

I hope they’re not all in the same room in heaven.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

But Pope Paul suppressed no liturgy. =/

He essentially made a new Missal available for use and “normative” but he did not suppress, illegalize or abrogate the 1570/1962 Missal. Nor did he suppress, illegalize or abrogate any other Rite, Form, etc.

Should it not follow though that by assenting to the Latin Rite, Latin is the only acceptable language for our Rite? It is as if Pope Paul created not just a parallel Mass but a parallel equivocal Rite which is ultimately contrary to two of the four marks of the Church, one and catholic, and one can argue how it contradicts the holy mark in it’s abuses.

 

[MarkThompson]

Should it not follow though that by assenting to the Latin Rite, Latin is the only acceptable language for our Rite?

For the reasons discussed in my recent remarks here, no, that’s doesn’t follow.

It is as if Pope Paul created not just a parallel Mass but a parallel equivocal Rite which is ultimately contrary to two of the four marks of the Church, one and catholic, and one can argue how it contradicts the holy mark in it’s abuses.

So what exactly does that say about all the other rites in the Catholic Church? I guess you’d better let everybody from the Franciscans and Dominicans to the Maronites and Byzantines know that they are “contradict[ing] the holy mark in it’s [sic] abuses” when they celebrate their proper (non-Roman, and for the latter two non-Latin) rites.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

For the reasons discussed in my recent remarks here, no, that’s doesn’t follow.

Origin of why we’re the Latin Rite has nothing to do with the fact that the Latin Rite is bound by God through the Magisterium’s decree to practice its Rite in Latin and only Latin. The question still stands, why do we have a parallel Mass that does not adhere to necessary structure of Mass within our Rite? The Novus Ordo is valid but by what authority do Latin Rite priests practice it in their parishes?

So what exactly does that say about all the other rites in the Catholic Church? I guess you’d better let everybody from the Franciscans and Dominicans to the Maronites and Byzantines know that they are “contradict[ing] the holy mark in it’s [sic] abuses” when they celebrate their proper (non-Roman, and for the latter two non-Latin) rites.

Why on earth are you introducing other Rites into the conversation? This is about the Latin Rite, not anything else. Within a Rite, it must display a unity of that Rite and not muddle and destroy that unity with multiplicity and confusion. And are you saying there are abuses in other Rites? I wasn’t, so don’t put words in my mouth. I was aiming at the liturgical abuses of the Novus Ordo, and unless Eastern Rites lets people handle the Most Holy Sacrament with unconsecrated hands or not practicing Ad orientem (to name just a few), I don’t judge them of abuses.

 

[MarkThompson]

Origin of why we’re the Latin Rite has nothing to do with the fact that the Latin Rite is bound by God through the Magisterium’s decree to practice its Rite in Latin and only Latin. The question still stands, why do we have a parallel Mass that does not adhere to necessary structure of Mass within our Rite?

“Bound by God”? “Necessary structure”? What are you talking about? (And “only Latin”? I guess the Kyrie (Greek) and Alleluia (Hebrew) are out, then.)

The Novus Ordo is valid but by what authority do Latin Rite priests practice it in their parishes?

By the authority of the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (1969).

Why on earth are you introducing other Rites into the conversation?

No, it was you who brought up the issue of “a parallel equivocal [sic] Rite,” with the charge that such a specimen would be “ultimately contrary to two of the four marks of the Church.”

This is about the Latin Rite, not anything else. Within a Rite, it must display a unity of that Rite and not muddle and destroy that unity with multiplicity and confusion.

This is not at all true. Where are you getting these strange, anti-Traditional ideas? “A unity of that Rite”? Historically we have had a veritable plethora of rites and sub-rites, even within the Latin church – the Ambrosian and the Mozarabic, the Sarum and the Gallican, and so forth. Don’t you agree that this is perfectly fine?

Anyway, the very existence – whether you like it or not – of the Eastern churches and their corresponding rites destroys your argument about the “marks of the Church.” I’m sure you don’t want to talk about the existence of the other rites that happily coexist in our Church when your contention is that a “multiplicity” of rites is so horrible and non-Catholic. But to put it another way, here’s how the discussion has gone so far:
You: The Novus Ordo is a new rite, and having more than one rite destroys the Church!
Me: Actually, we already had lots of different of different rites, such as –
You: Quiet, don’t tell me that! We must have one rite only!

 

[TS_Aquinas]

“Bound by God”? “Necessary structure”? What are you talking about? (And “only Latin”? I guess the Kyrie (Greek) and Alleluia (Hebrew) are out, then.)

By the authority of the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (1969).

No, it was you who brought up the issue of “a parallel equivocal [sic] Rite,” with the charge that such a specimen would be “ultimately contrary to two of the four marks of the Church.”

This is not at all true. Where are you getting these strange, anti-Traditional ideas? “A unity of that Rite”? Historically we have had a veritable plethora of rites and sub-rites, even within the Latin church – the Ambrosian and the Mozarabic, the Sarum and the Gallican, and so forth. Don’t you agree that this is perfectly fine?

Anyway, the very existence – whether you like it or not – of the Eastern churches and their corresponding rites destroys your argument about the “marks of the Church.” I’m sure you don’t want to talk about the existence of the other rites that happily coexist in our Church when your contention is that a “multiplicity” of rites is so horrible and non-Catholic. But to put it another way, here’s how the discussion has gone so far:
You: The Novus Ordo is a new rite, and having more than one rite destroys the Church!
Me: Actually, we already had lots of different of different rites, such as –
You: Quiet, don’t tell me that! We must have one rite only!

You’re completely missing the point. Within the Roman Rite, ever since Quo Primum, we’ve had one form of Mass. Now we have an “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form” of the same Rite. Of which are so polar opposite, the Novus Ordo seems to be a completely separate Rite, and funny enough that Constitution even said that. I don’t care about other Rites or sub-Rites, they have their own approved liturgy (of which they don’t see it logical to split their own Rite in two separate forms), it has no bearing on the topic. Let’s get perspective, here’s a proper list of rites ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm why on earth is the Roman Rite the only Rite in that list that has a split in form, of which the “ordinary form” is hardly Roman in structure? Can see why so many flee to Eastern Rites today to get out of this atmosphere of disunity. If you don’t see that this split is contrary oneness in our own Rite, then merely gaze at the state of our Roman Rite from since the beginning of the Novus Ordo to today. Do I need to remind you who said “the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God”?