Quo Primum Tempore, binding on Pope Pius V's successors?

[Catholic29]

There is ample evidence to suggest that the Roman Missal codified in Pope Pius V’s document Quo Primum Tempore was never promulgated as a dogmatic declaration. Though many radical traditionalists to this day continue to trumpet this assertion, however the burden of proof is not with them as is thoroughly explained in these links from reputably orthodox sources.

web.archive.org/web/20030411075529/www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3400&highlight=Primum

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=35146&highlight=Primum

And if it were slolemnly defined as dogmatic(Ex Cathedra), which no evidence exists to suggest it ever was, then what Living Magisterium is there to defend or correct its misinterpretation? Since according to SSPX supporters and other rad trads it supposedly died at Vatican II. But the current “regime”(to use their language) which currently occupies the Vatican has consistently stated to the contrary.

However I would love to read a dissenting opinion, though I probably won’t get any in light of the links above.

A link to Quo Primum Tempore: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P5QUOPRI.htm

 

[Sean_O_L]

Catholic29
You can add the following to the list:

CHAPTER NINE
Was the Tridentine Liturgy for All Time?
The "Pope St. Pius V and Quo Primum Tempore "Argument

One of the first arguments one encounters from SSPX apologists is the Quo Primum argument. This argument takes its name from Pope St. Pius V’s sixteenth-century papal bull Quo Primum Tempore. Many SSPX proponents claim that St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Mass in perpetuity, meaning for all time. They argue that every priest has the right to use the Roman Missal codified by St. Pius V in Quo Primum Tempore, and that this right cannot be taken away from a priest.

The main problem with the Quo Primum Tempore argument is its failure to take into account canonical Tradition. First, this argument does not distinguish between the doctrine and the discipline of the Catholic Church. Yet that distinction is critical.

Briefly put, a dogma is a doctrine the Church formally defines, declaring it with certitude to be infallible. Take, for example, the dogma of the Blessed Mother’s assumption into heaven. Pope Pius XII didn’t suddenly declare it as a new truth in 1950 that Mary was assumed into heaven; this truth, after all, had come into existence nearly two millennia before when Mary was assumed. Rather, the Holy Father declared this dogma because the Church knew for certain that Mary had been assumed into heaven. At that point, Our Lady’s assumption was thus no longer a matter of theological speculation for Catholics. Once declared, a dogma must be believed by the Catholic faithful, and cannot be rejected or abandoned — although the Church may always clarify her understanding of a dogma.

A mere discipline of the Faith, on the other hand, is a law, a custom, or a practice originating from the Church as a means of safeguarding the good order of the Church. To establish ecclesiastical discipline, the Church must ask herself: What is the most practical way of protecting the doctrine of the Church
here and now?

Consequently, discipline is subject to change depending upon the present needs of the Church. Furthermore, mere disciplines of the Faith need not be applied in the same manner throughout the entire Church, and they may always be dispensed from, since the pastoral needs of one particular grouping of the faithful may differ from the pastoral needs of another. For example, the discipline of celibacy is imposed upon Catholic priests in the Latin Church, whereas this discipline is optional for Catholic priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Through this insight one sees the weakness of the claim put forward by many SSPX apologists. Within the very text of Quo Primum Tempore stands a clause by St. Pius V granting an exception to the declaration: All priests and bishops who said Mass using liturgical missals more than two hundred years old were not obliged to use this codified version of the Roman Missal. So even from the beginning of its promulgation, Quo Primum Tempore never applied to every Catholic priest. From this fact alone, one can safely draw the correct conclusion that Quo Primum Tempore is merely disciplinary. For a dogmatic definition, by its very nature, binds the entire Church, while Quo Primum Tempore contains exceptions among the Catholic faithful in its application. Since “equals have no power over one another,” as the old canonical principle states, any disciplinary document can be legally changed or revoked by a successor of the one who first promulgated it.

Yet even if this were not the case, and future Roman Pontiffs were forbidden from reforming the Missal codified by St. Pius V, one cannot deny that this papal bull merely granted the right to celebrate Mass according to the Tridentine Missal. Quo Primum Tempore did not extend the right to bishops — upon their own authority and against the expressed wishes of the Roman Pontiff — to ordain priests and consecrate bishops as Archbishop Lefebvre had done. In other words, using a certain liturgical Missal to offer the holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not the same action as consecrating bishops without permission of the Roman Pontiff, even if one consecrates bishops in order to provide a source of ordination for priests who will say the Tridentine Liturgy.

More Catholic Than the Pope: An Inside Look AT Extreme Traditionalism, by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. Huntington, Indiana, 46750.

 

[Catholic29]

Thanks Sean,

I think with that it is a shut case for those that decree Pope Paul VI disobeyed Quo Primum by promulgating the NOM as the normative Missal in the Roman Rite of the Church.

Anyone have a rebuttal?

 

[EddieArent]

The title speaks for itself;

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

• False witness (not under oath) or perjury (under oath)
• Telling large or premeditated lies
• Serious gossip, detraction (revealing the faults of another without serious reason), or calumny (harming the reputation of another by falsities)
• Violation of a confidence without good reason
• Being an accomplice to another’s grave sin

 

[TNT]

I’m a Rad-Trad in the highest sense of that title.
Bet you didn’t suspect it!

I believe that the PIUS V coded Mass was never abrogated. I believe the Vatican assures us of that.
Could it be suppressed? YES.

1. Because it was.
2. I believe it was Providence that it was suppressed for about 15 years. Thus taking it out of harm’s way.
3. I believe that in the radical Modernist clergy enviroment after VATII the TLM would have been raped and effectively murdered.
4. I believe that Providence gave us Traditional Mass devoted priests and when that took place, Providence provided for it again under their protection, and that of the Pope.

This makes complete logical sense to me. Our God is a terrible awesome God who works all things for the good of his beloved Church.
Do I attend an SSPX Mass?
My wife is SSPX, and I attend weekday Masses with her. It is the ecumenical thing to do. Just as bishops attend Lutheran services and the pope prays with those outside the Catholic profession of Faith.
Do I agree with “absolute right” of priests to say the TLM? NO. There are many who have no right to say it, they admit that, and they don’t.

 

[Catholic29]

EddieArent:

The title speaks for itself;

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

• False witness (not under oath) or perjury (under oath)
• Telling large or premeditated lies
• Serious gossip, detraction (revealing the faults of another without serious reason), or calumny (harming the reputation of another by falsities)
• Violation of a confidence without good reason
• Being an accomplice to another’s grave sin

Just what may you be implying? I know rad trads are notorious for such unfortunate transgressions, but all I have ever posted here are verified facts.

 

[Sean_O_L]

TNT wrote:

Do I attend an SSPX Mass?
My wife is SSPX, and I attend weekday Masses with her. It is the ecumenical thing to do.

So where do you go on Sundays?

By the way: I agree with you that Quo Primum tempore was not abrogated. But it WAS obrogated and, very probably, derogated.

But the matter is moot. The pre 1969 liturgy was replaced by the 1969 liturgy pursuant to the Apostolic authority of Pope Paul VI who was the only possessor of the Keys.

 

[TNT]

Sean O L:

TNT wrote:

** So where do you go on Sundays?**

By the way: I agree with you that Quo Primum tempore was not abrogated. But it WAS obrogated and, very probably, derogated.

But the matter is moot. The pre 1969 liturgy was replaced by the 1969 liturgy pursuant to the Apostolic authority of Pope Paul VI who was the only possessor of the Keys.

We have 3 indults. 2 Masses in Dallas. 1 in Ft worth on Sunday.
2 accommodating bishops. We separate on Sun.
But for a while she would come with me. til about a year ago.

 

[Sean_O_L]

TNT wrote:

We have 3 indults. 2 Masses in Dallas. 1 in Ft worth on Sunday.
2 accommodating bishops. We separate on Sun.
But for a while she would come with me. til about a year ago.

This does not tell me where you attend Mass. It only tells me that (some) Indult Masses are available to be attended, and that there are two bishops who accomodate the Indult Mass.

It does not preclude the possibility that you attend or are prepared to attend an “Independent” Mass.

Now, you are not under any obligation to actually disclose this information if you do not choose to do so.

As far as I can tell, this is the availabiliity situation:

Mr Deel at “Upholding Tradition” advises that the FSSP “Indult” Masses are at:

Carmelite Sisters Chapel
600 Flowers Ave., Dallas, TX 75211, dallas.traditionalmass.net
Fr. C. Hathaway, FSSP, (214) 887-8696, fax 887-8717, mapdal@cathdal.org
Diocese, SU 9:30 am & 11:30 am

St. Thomas Aquinas Church
6306 Kenwood Ave., Dallas, TX 75214
Fr. C. Hathaway, FSSP, (214) 887-8696, fax 887-8717, mapdal@cathdal.org
Diocese, M-F 6:30 am

He also advises that there is an “Independent” (read SSPX!) Mass at Ft. Worth at

Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church
3900 Scruggs Dr., N. Richland Hills (Ft. Worth), TX 76180
Fr. Daniel Cooper, (817) 284-4809, 268-3307
SSPX, SU 11:30 am

M.E.Morrison’s “TRADITIO” adds a second “Independent” at Ft. Worth at

Sacred Heart of Jesus Roman Catholic Church
6300 Nell St., Fort Worth, TX 76119
Fr. William Mooney, (827) 531-1818, frmooney@aol.com
Independent, SU 10 am, M-F 7 am, 1st F 7 pm, SA 8 am

And a third “Indult” Mass at Ft. Worth.

St. Mary of the Assumption Church
509 W. Magnolia, Ft. Worth, TX 76104
No celebrant announced, (817) 923-1911, stmarys.ftw@juno.com
Diocese, SU 5:30 pm

I sympathize with you completely about the “split personality” position between yourself and your wife. The only thing that I can recommend, apart from prayer and penance, is that you acquaint her with Captain Roniel Aledo’s attempted debate with Bishop Fellay. which worked on his SSPX wife.

 

[TNT]

Sean O L:

TNT wrote:

This does not tell me where you attend Mass. It only tells me that (some) Indult Masses are available to be attended, and that there are two bishops who accomodate the Indult Mass.

It does not preclude the possibility that you attend or are prepared to attend an “Independent” Mass.

Now, you are not under any obligation to actually disclose this information if you do not choose to do so.

As far as I can tell, this is the availabiliity situation:

Mr Deel at “Upholding Tradition” advises that the FSSP “Indult” Masses are at:

Carmelite Sisters Chapel
600 Flowers Ave., Dallas, TX 75211, dallas.traditionalmass.net
Fr. C. Hathaway, FSSP, (214) 887-8696, fax 887-8717, mapdal@cathdal.org
Diocese, SU 9:30 am & 11:30 am

St. Thomas Aquinas Church
6306 Kenwood Ave., Dallas, TX 75214
Fr. C. Hathaway, FSSP, (214) 887-8696, fax 887-8717, mapdal@cathdal.org
Diocese, M-F 6:30 am

He also advises that there is an “Independent” (read SSPX!) Mass at Ft. Worth at

Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church
3900 Scruggs Dr., N. Richland Hills (Ft. Worth), TX 76180
Fr. Daniel Cooper, (817) 284-4809, 268-3307
SSPX, SU 11:30 am

M.E.Morrison’s “TRADITIO” adds a second “Independent” at Ft. Worth at

Sacred Heart of Jesus Roman Catholic Church
6300 Nell St., Fort Worth, TX 76119
Fr. William Mooney, (827) 531-1818, frmooney@aol.com
Independent, SU 10 am, M-F 7 am, 1st F 7 pm, SA 8 am

And a third “Indult” Mass at Ft. Worth.

St. Mary of the Assumption Church
509 W. Magnolia, Ft. Worth, TX 76104
No celebrant announced, (817) 923-1911, stmarys.ftw@juno.com
Diocese, SU 5:30 pm

I sympathize with you completely about the “split personality” position between yourself and your wife. The only thing that I can recommend, apart from prayer and penance, is that you acquaint her with Captain Roniel Aledo’s attempted debate with Bishop Fellay. which worked on his SSPX wife.

Sorrry, I thought it was clear that we separate on Sunday. I use the Assumption in FT W most of the time. There are a few times I use Carmel Sisters Chapel such as HDO’s, because it is closer to work, and as far as I know Ft W does not have it on HDO’s, last I knew.
I have been inside the independant church. It is very small, holds maybe 70 people. It looks like it was a prot “steeple” style church at one time. I think it is a Thuc ordination legacy. Lots of statuary. My Wife talked to the priest there about 4 yrs ago. That was her understanding.
The SSPX is where She goes on Sunday.
Aquinas is impossible to get to during the week, too far too much traffic.
The same priest services all the indult locations.
I’ve never been able to reconcile sede position and still have a Church. So, indep. are not in the running.

 

[Sean_O_L]

O.K. Thanks for the clarification. No probs with that. I hope that your wife mellows with time: it took me 23 years!.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

This is from a sede, but I think [despite its position on the popes] it has a good point regarding quo primum.

Quo Primum: Could a Pope Change It?

			 **QUESTION:** *During a recent argument with a Novus Ordo friend, she told me that (according to her priest) popes can change whatever they want, as long as it is not dogmatic. We were discussing “Quo Primum.” I told her that it was forever, but she said that even if the pope said “forever” another pope can change it. What would you say to that?*

REPLY: On this point, she’s right.
A (true) pope is the supreme legislator for ecclesiastical law and has the power to change ecclesiastical laws enacted by his predecessors. Quo Primum was an ecclesiastical law, and a true pope did indeed have the power to abrogate it or modify any of its provisions.
The “forever” clause was merely a type of legal boilerplate common in all sorts of papal legislation.
In the 1960s faithful Catholics seized upon this language as a justification for disobeying the new liturgical legislation while simultaneously “recognizing” Paul VI as a true pope. This was unfortunate, because anyone who knows a bit about canon law can refute the argument very easily.
The argument also obscures the real reason for adhering to the traditional Mass and rejecting the New Mass: The old rite is Catholic. The new rite is evil, inimical to Catholic doctrine (on the Real Presence, the priesthood, the nature of the Mass, etc.) and a sacrilege.
If you send me your postal address, though, I’ll send you a consolation prize: some copies of a booklet I wrote, Welcome to the Traditional Latin Mass, that compares the old Mass and the New Mass.
Give a copy to your friend and tell her to give it to her priest. That should keep him busy for quite awhile!
QUESTION: So you are saying that a real pope can change a Papal Bull decree that another pope has made in perpetuity? Why would a pope decree something for all time, if another pope could change it?
REPLY: If it was a disciplinary Bull (establishing a church law), yes, another pope could change it.
The language was simply a standard formula in church legislation that referred to one of the qualities a law is supposed to have: stability.
Frequent changes in laws harm the common good because people do not know how to act — hence, laws are supposed to be relatively stable. But a human legislator (unlike God) cannot foresee all future circumstances, so his successor has the power to change existing laws if he decides the circumstances warrant it.
This reflects a general principle in law: An equal does not have power over another equal. No pope who used “perpetuity” in his disciplinary decrees understood the term to mean that no future pope could ever amend or replace his legislation.
And popes did in fact change some of the provisions of Quo Primum, even before Vatican II. In 1604, for instance, Pope Clement VI issued new regulations for the Blessing at Mass, and in 1634 Pope Urban VIII changed the wording of the Missal’s rubrics and hymn texts.
Traditionalists should stop using the Quo Primum argument. It’s a canon law urban legend — as in “alligators in the sewers,” rather than Urban VIII!
This was written by Rev. Anthony Cekada.

 

[thistle]

Leaving aside the specific document in the title of the thread I always understood that one Pope cannot bind another. Is this not the case?

 

[BobP123]

Leaving aside the specific document in the title of the thread I always understood that one Pope cannot bind another. Is this not the case?

In disciplinary matters, that is true. But is the Mass and the rubrics behind it really just disciplinary if there is Catholic theology or mindset behind it? And what does it do for the integrity of the Church when one Pope just tosses aside 1950 years of tradition just for the sake of showing his predecessors up or to prove a point?

Furthermore, Quo Primum was based on the canons of Trent and it is Trent that is the underlying argument for the Traditional Latin Mass, not Pius V.

 

[somepurpose]

Through this insight one sees the weakness of the claim put forward by many SSPX apologists. Within the very text of Quo Primum Tempore stands a clause by St. Pius V granting an exception to the declaration: All priests and bishops who said Mass using liturgical missals more than two hundred years old were not obliged to use this codified version of the Roman Missal. So even from the beginning of its promulgation, Quo Primum Tempore never applied to every Catholic priest. From this fact alone, one can safely draw the correct conclusion that Quo Primum Tempore is merely disciplinary. For a dogmatic definition, by its very nature, binds the entire Church, while Quo Primum Tempore contains exceptions among the Catholic faithful in its application.

Great question, great thread. Now I’m learning stuff, but the above is just spectacularly silly. It’s true that is doesn’t bind the entire Church to attend the TLM. If it bound at all, it would bind all the faithful to attend one of a specified group of approved rites. How does that have exceptions? Gimme a break.

Quo Primum: Could a Pope Change It?

			 **QUESTION:** *During a recent argument with a Novus Ordo friend, she told me that (according to her priest) popes can change whatever they want, as long as it is not dogmatic. We were discussing “Quo Primum.” I told her that it was forever, but she said that even if the pope said “forever” another pope can change it. What would you say to that?*

REPLY: On this point, she’s right.
A (true) pope is the supreme legislator for ecclesiastical law and has the power to change ecclesiastical laws enacted by his predecessors. Quo Primum was an ecclesiastical law, and a true pope did indeed have the power to abrogate it or modify any of its provisions.
The “forever” clause was merely a type of legal boilerplate common in all sorts of papal legislation.
In the 1960s faithful Catholics seized upon this language as a justification for disobeying the new liturgical legislation while simultaneously “recognizing” Paul VI as a true pope. This was unfortunate, because anyone who knows a bit about canon law can refute the argument very easily.

QUESTION: So you are saying that a real pope can change a Papal Bull decree that another pope has made in perpetuity? Why would a pope decree something for all time, if another pope could change it?
REPLY: If it was a disciplinary Bull (establishing a church law), yes, another pope could change it.
The language was simply a standard formula in church legislation that referred to one of the qualities a law is supposed to have: stability.
Frequent changes in laws harm the common good because people do not know how to act — hence, laws are supposed to be relatively stable. But a human legislator (unlike God) cannot foresee all future circumstances, so his successor has the power to change existing laws if he decides the circumstances warrant it.
This reflects a general principle in law: An equal does not have power over another equal. No pope who used “perpetuity” in his disciplinary decrees understood the term to mean that no future pope could ever amend or replace his legislation.
And popes did in fact change some of the provisions of Quo Primum, even before Vatican II. In 1604, for instance, Pope Clement VI issued new regulations for the Blessing at Mass, and in 1634 Pope Urban VIII changed the wording of the Missal’s rubrics and hymn texts.
Traditionalists should stop using the Quo Primum argument. It’s a canon law urban legend — as in “alligators in the sewers,” rather than Urban VIII!

			 					This was written by Rev. Anthony Cekada.

But this is good except for the part I bolded where the second sentence could be true without the first one being true, which is probably the case but not really important here. So, when the Pope wrote he was establishing something in perpetuity, he knew darn well he couldn’t really do it in this case and didn’t mean that when he wrote it. Strange, but I’m certainly prepared to defer to the Rev. Cekada.

So where does this leave us in regard to mass? Certainly, Quo Primum implies that all Catholics are permitted to attend the TLM. Was that ever formerly taken away? If not, no indults or MPs are needed, i.e. it seems the most reasonable interpretation of recent history is that the NO is just another mass that Catholics may attend.

 

[somepurpose]

In disciplinary matters, that is true. But is the Mass and the rubrics behind it really just disciplinary if there is Catholic theology or mindset behind it? And what does it do for the integrity of the Church when one Pope just tosses aside 1950 years of tradition just for the sake of showing his predecessors up or to prove a point?

Furthermore, Quo Primum was based on the canons of Trent and it is Trent that is the underlying argument for the Traditional Latin Mass, not Pius V.

The point quoted above should be emphasized. I’m convinced that anyone who argued that Catholics are obligated to attend one of a handful of rites based on Quo Primum, as I have in the past, would be producing an unsound argument. That one point still leaves opponents a LOOOOOONG way from undermining the traditionalist perspective.

 

[BobP123]

Question: What’s the force of law behind these lines:

Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Remember, EX CATHEDRA was not available to Pius V at that time. Or was it?

 

[michaelmjo]

Saint Pope Pius V’s Quo Primum, a disciplinary document, is not binding on his successors. All validly elected pontiffs have the charism of infallibility, a surety program of the Holy Spirit, which was defined at the First Vatican Council, 1870.

 

[labernadette]

There is ample evidence to suggest that the Roman Missal codified in Pope Pius V’s document Quo Primum Tempore was never promulgated as a dogmatic declaration. Though many radical traditionalists to this day continue to trumpet this assertion, however the burden of proof is not with them as is thoroughly explained in these links from reputably orthodox sources.

web.archive.org/web/20030411075529/www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3400&highlight=Primum

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=35146&highlight=Primum

And if it were slolemnly defined as dogmatic(Ex Cathedra), which no evidence exists to suggest it ever was, then what Living Magisterium is there to defend or correct its misinterpretation? Since according to SSPX supporters and other rad trads it supposedly died at Vatican II. But the current “regime”(to use their language) which currently occupies the Vatican has consistently stated to the contrary.

However I would love to read a dissenting opinion, though I probably won’t get any in light of the links above.

A link to Quo Primum Tempore: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P5QUOPRI.htm

There is nothing in any of the links above to prove any of your false musings and desires to deny the Papal Bull, Quo Primum.
dailycatholic.org/quoprimu.htm

 

[BobP123]

Saint Pope Pius V’s Quo Primum, a disciplinary document, is not binding on his successors. All validly elected pontiffs have the charism of infallibility, a surety program of the Holy Spirit, which was defined at the First Vatican Council, 1870.

And how would Pope Pius V, a validly elected pontiff, have declared such a charism, if he had so wished?

It’s probably a moot point anyway since no one has overturned Quo Primum.