Pope St. Pius V-Quo Primum

[ProVobis]

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.

For the record Pope Paul promulgated the Mass in the Latin. Vatican II documents specified Latin as the language of the liturgy in the Latin Rite. The matter of the translations was left entirely to the bishops. At least at first anyway.

 

[JReducation]

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?

No pope has the authority to bind another pope. The only law that can bind a pope is divine law found in natural law, divine law found in revelation and revealed dogma.

Once a pope dies, he ceases to govern. He cannot govern from the grave. The same is true of councils. Pope are not bound by councils. Even the mighty Council of Trent does not bind the pope. What binds the pope is any dogma that was defined at Trent, not rules, laws, disciplines, customs or renewals.

People often hear that the pope is infallible or that Trent was infallible and don’t know that both statements are highly exaggerated. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, even when he exercises the ordinary magisterium. In other words, he does not have to speak ex Cathedra to speak infallibly on faith or morals. If he talks about the upcoming Olympics, I wouldn’t bet on his team.

A council is infallible when it affirms a dogma or moral law that is already believed by the Church. For example, Vatican I affirmed papal infallibility and proceeded to unwrap it for us. But Vatican I did not pull papal infallibility out of the collective sleeves of the bishops. This was believed from the first generation of Christians up to today.

Quo Primum is about liturgy. The manner in which liturgy is celebrated is man-made. Therefore, man can also change it without impunity, as long as he has the authority to change it. When St. Pius V said that no one could change this, he was not speaking to his successors. He was speaking to the rest of us. His successors could change it.

Just as he had the authority to enforce it, his successors have the authority to enforce a change, if they choose to do so. One pope never has more authority than another.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Alfonsus]

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”?

Ever since Quo Primum, the Latin Church, still have several form of Mass:

• Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan, Sarum use and Lyonese use for instance. They are still used even after Quo Primum.
• Religious Orders rites: Carmelite, Dominican, Carthusian rites for instance. They are still used even after Quo Primum.

Thus, the Latin Chuch never a single rite entity. The Roman Rite has uses that is in fact, variation of the Roman Rite, which make even the Roman Rite variable to some degree from the very beginning. For instance, the Seraphic Missal, which is Roman rite liturgy but can be categorized as separate use exercised by the Franciscans.

Of the Eastern rites, say, Byzantine rite, they have several forms of liturgy too.
The Divine Liturgy employed usually is the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. But the have also Liturgy of Saint James. They don’t mind about these forms, perhaps because from the beginning they live with one rite in multiple forms.

 

[JReducation]

Ever since Quo Primum, the Latin Church, still have several form of Mass:

• Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan, Sarum use and Lyonese use for instance. They are still used even after Quo Primum.
• Religious Orders rites: Carmelite, Dominican, Carthusian rites for instance. They are still used even after Quo Primum.

Thus, the Latin Chuch never a single rite entity. The Roman Rite has uses that is in fact, variation of the Roman Rite, which make even the Roman Rite variable to some degree from the very beginning. For instance, the Seraphic Missal, which is Roman rite liturgy but can be categorized as separate use exercised by the Franciscans.

Not only did Franciscans have their own form the Roman Rite, but so did Augustinians and Benedictines. The Benedictine tradition is rather interesting, because the Rule of St. Benedict gives full authority to abbot of each house to literally create the liturgy of the mass and of the hours for his house. Obviously, he must retain the essential elements necessary for validity. But he has a great deal of latitude. This right was never rescinded by the Church, to this day abbots control the liturgical life of their houses. Though I believe that they work in groups of houses called congregations, not to be confused with religious congregations. Religious congregations have a central government. Benedictine congregations do not. They are for the purpose of fraternal cooperation. However, each abbot and abbey is autonomous.

As result, there has always been diversity among the Benedictines. When they ran local churches, before the birth of the modern parish, people were unaware of the differences, because there was no internet, TV and not much travel either.

Quo Primum allowed all of that diversity to remain in place. It was much more visible then, than it is today. At that time, most priests belonged to religious orders. Religious congregations did not yet exist and diocesan priests were very few and far between. It was the diocesan clergy and later the congregations that were bound to the “new order” of the mass promulgated by Pope Pius V. The orders were not affected as long as they kept harmony and unity within themselves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Quo Primum allowed all of that diversity to remain in place. It was much more visible then, than it is today. At that time, most priests belonged to religious orders. Religious congregations did not yet exist and diocesan priests were very few and far between. It was the diocesan clergy and later the congregations that were bound to the “new order” of the mass promulgated by Pope Pius V. The orders were not affected as long as they kept harmony and unity within themselves.

Br. JR, I had one Polish priest tell us that Quo Primum effectively codified the canon of the Mass after the Council of Trent. The same canon supposedly goes all the way back to St. Gregory. In that sense it was in perpetuity and and has been honored by all Popes, additional canons to the OF notwithstanding. Removal or addition of certain prayers outside of the canon doesn’t change the Mass, although these days new translations make it appear that the Mass is forever being changed.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, I had one Polish priest tell us that Quo Primum effectively codified the canon of the Mass after the Council of Trent. The same canon supposedly goes all the way back to St. Gregory. In that sense it was in perpetuity and and has been honored by all Popes, additional canons to the OF notwithstanding. Removal or addition of certain prayers outside of the canon doesn’t change the Mass, although these days new translations make it appear that the Mass is forever being changed.

Father is correct. Quo Primum did codify the canon. This is not binding on any pope. The reason for that was that there were several canons floating around. The canon, as codified by Quo Primum, was used by everyone, even though the orders all had their own forms for the rest of the mass. Correction, the canon was used by everyone who used the Roman Rite. For example, Dominicans did not use it. The canon is still in the missal. Some parts of it have changed over the years, but nothing radical. Some saints were added and others pulled. If you keep adding saints without pulling, the canon can go on for three hours. Some of the prayers have bee shortened over the centuries and one or two have actually been added. It’s essentially the same.

The other Eucharistic prayers are modeled on the Canon. The intent was to add options. Unfortunately, many priests get stuck in a rut of using the same prayer. That was not the idea. I was in seminary when they first came out. The idea was to change the prayers for example when celebrating a major holy day, let’s say Christmas or Easter, you would use the canon. On a memorial you would use one of the simpler Eucharistic prayers. One on a feast, for a votive mass one of the others and so forth. If one reads them, they actually have degrees of formality to them that correspond to the liturgical calendar and the different masses.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Father is correct. Quo Primum did codify the canon. This is not binding on any pope. The reason for that was that there were several canons floating around. The canon, as codified by Quo Primum, was used by everyone, even though the orders all had their own forms for the rest of the mass. Correction, the canon was used by everyone who used the Roman Rite. For example, Dominicans did not use it. The canon is still in the missal. Some parts of it have changed over the years, but nothing radical. Some saints were added and others pulled. If you keep adding saints without pulling, the canon can go on for three hours. Some of the prayers have bee shortened over the centuries and one or two have actually been added. It’s essentially the same.

Br JR, one has to wonder then if Quo Primum was even needed. (Aside from the fact it eliminated all the Reformation canons, which some claim just clarified Trent’s decrees.) Didn’t the Vatican recently make a statement to the effect that the validity of the Mass comes from Tradition and thus allowed the Assyrian Chaldean Rite as valid, even though it doesn’t contain the words of the Institution? I guess effectively this undermines De Defectibus to some extent.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The idea was to change the prayers for example when celebrating a major holy day, let’s say Christmas or Easter, you would use the canon. On a memorial you would use one of the simpler Eucharistic prayers. One on a feast, for a votive mass one of the others and so forth. If one reads them, they actually have degrees of formality to them that correspond to the liturgical calendar and the different masses.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

However, unfortunately, there are no attached requirements as to when to use which EP. Everything is an “option.”

Therefore the Roman Canon is rare as a purple cat.

 

[JReducation]

However, unfortunately, there are no attached requirements as to when to use which EP. Everything is an “option.”

Therefore the Roman Canon is rare as a purple cat.

Do you like purple cats?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

The other Eucharistic prayers are modeled on the Canon. The intent was to add options. Unfortunately, many priests get stuck in a rut of using the same prayer. That was not the idea.

The story I heard is that effectively Pope Paul cut down the number of Canons used to four. Many bishops had been creating their own canons in the late 60’s, including the French bishops who supposedly had as many as 20 canons in their liturgical books. Thus the permission to use four carefully selected ones in 1969, preserving the Roman Canon among the four. The other three were validated on their ancient merits, I think.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Do you like purple cats?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I like Roman Canons more than purple cats.

The story I heard is that effectively Pope Paul cut down the number of Canons used to four. Many bishops had been creating their own canons in the late 60’s, including the French bishops who supposedly had as many as 20 canons in their liturgical books. Thus the permission to use four carefully selected ones in 1969, preserving the Roman Canon among the four. The other three were validated on their ancient merits, I think.

Pretty sure this is true. One of the four (IV I think) is an entirely new composition.

Btw, the scholarship behind the “EP II is oldest” has been proven wrong. And common sense proves that “oldest is automatically best” is wrong.

 

[JReducation]

The story I heard is that effectively Pope Paul cut down the number of Canons used to four. Many bishops had been creating their own canons in the late 60’s, including the French bishops who supposedly had as many as 20 canons in their liturgical books. Thus the permission to use four carefully selected ones in 1969, preserving the Roman Canon among the four. The other three were validated on their ancient merits, I think.

This was at the very end. The reason that they even began with the additional canons was to try to match the liturgical calendar. What His Holiness did was to tidy it up. Observe the rank of the liturgical calendar. There are four and there are four EPs.

Solemnity

Feast

Memorial

Votive

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[YoungTradCath]

This was at the very end. The reason that they even began with the additional canons was to try to match the liturgical calendar. What His Holiness did was to tidy it up. Observe the rank of the liturgical calendar. There are four and there are four EPs.

Solemnity

Feast

Memorial

Votive

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

You might have a point if the numbers of the EPs are switched around.

For example, EPII is the shortest and least formal. We would use that for a Feast day but EPIII, quite a bit longer and more poetic, on a Memorial?

How you say it might have been the way it was intended, but I think the implementation of this was a fail. If this is really going to work, then perhaps the prayers need to be “re-ranked” and there need to be exact requirements (Roman Canon obligatory on Solemnities, etc.), otherwise it seems no one cares.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

You might have a point if the numbers of the EPs are switched around.

For example, EPII is the shortest and least formal. We would use that for a Feast day but EPIII, quite a bit longer and more poetic, on a Memorial?

How you say it might have been the way it was intended, but I think the implementation of this was a fail. If this is really going to work, then perhaps the prayers need to be “re-ranked” and there need to be exact requirements (Roman Canon obligatory on Solemnities, etc.), otherwise it seems no one cares.

Good point. Besides, as commonly celebrated in my diocese, it is EPII. All the time. One priest uses the Roman Canon on Holy Thursday, but he said it is too long for any other time.

• PAX

 

[Mrs_Sally]

You might have a point if the numbers of the EPs are switched around.

For example, EPII is the shortest and least formal. We would use that for a Feast day but EPIII, quite a bit longer and more poetic, on a Memorial?

How you say it might have been the way it was intended, but I think the implementation of this was a fail. If this is really going to work, then perhaps the prayers need to be “re-ranked” and there need to be exact requirements (Roman Canon obligatory on Solemnities, etc.), otherwise it seems no one cares.

I have a feeling that that Pope and the Bishops thought that the priests were able to figure it out on their own.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I have a feeling that that Pope and the Bishops thought that the priests were able to figure it out on their own.

Unfortunately, it seems that the 1970s and 1980s showed us that the greater freedom the priests were given in the rubrics, the more of a mess the liturgy became. Tighten the rubrics, save the liturgy.

• PAX

 

[YoungTradCath]

I have a feeling that that Pope and the Bishops thought that the priests were able to figure it out on their own.

Unfortunately, it seems that really usually doesn’t work. In anything, in any setting, with most people people, most of the time.

That, in my opinion, is common sense. And it seems to be quite naive to think that people are going to do what you tell them to do unless you make them.

A failing grade is usually something that makes a college student want to do well. If there wasn’t a possibility of getting bad grades, probably no one would study.

A strict rubric is usually something that makes a priest do something.

If there is a set of options without strict requirements for using each, most people will choose the easiest.

 

[MaterDei37113]

“Quo Permum” certainly is 100% binding on everyone. Pope St. Pius V used the fullness of his Apostolic Authority in the declaration of this bull.
However, Bl. Pope Paul VI did not violate this bull, he wrote a new Mass, but never forced anyone to celebrate it. He promulgated the Novus Ordo legaly and licitly

But…I prefer the Tridentine Mass of Pope Pius V, it is the Mass of our forefathes, the Mass of the glorious martyrs, the most beautiful and perfect act of worship for mankind. It is not just a beautiful rite, but a divine gift; a privilege…set upon the solid and dogmatic bull of Pius V to be observed “in perpetuity”. No other rite can compare to this Tridentine rite.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Old thread

CLOSED