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

[Genesis315]

Papal Infallibility is a dogma of the faith–a timeless truth revealed by God. Popes were definitively proclaiming doctrines of faith and morals to be held by the whole Church waaaay before Vatican I–since the beginning. That Council just definitvely proclaimed this timeless truth.

“Ex Cathedra” just means, from the chair, an expression that means the Pope is intending to teach the entire Church.

Quo Primum’s statement concerning the Missal is not a definitive proclamation of a doctrine of faith or morals that must be held by the whole Church–it is not a timeless truth–therefore it doesn’t make sense to apply the dogma of papal infallibility.

The Church has always been able to change rites as it saw fit, with the Roman Pontiff having the final say over such changes.

 

[labernadette]

For your further edification:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/legitimacy_of_quo_primum_today.htm

 

[Genesis315]

Here are some magisterial texts on this issue:

**Council Of Trent:

**[The council] furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain or change what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. (Session XXI, Cap. 2)

Vatican I:

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
2. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

Most explicitly, Pius XII says that the liturgy is subject to the authority of the pope in his encyclical Mediator Dei:

1. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

---

1. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
2. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

---

1. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

He is pretty clear on the liturgical changes by the Apostolic See as being legitimate.

continued…

 

[labernadette]

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.

No one has overturned what*** cannot ***be overturned.

 

[Genesis315]

More from Pius XII:

“More properly, since the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the supreme teaching authority of the Church, it can supply proofs and testimony, quite clearly, of no little value, towards the determination of a particular point of Christian doctrine.”

In this case, he is treating the liturgy like a symbol or creed–which all are subject to revision by the Roman Pontiff and to which the Roman pontiff may issue new symbols or creeds–and in fact his infallibility is exercised in the revision and/or drawing up of the creeds. See this section of the Summa:
http://newadvent.org/summa/300110.htm

If the Roman Pontiff has authority over symbols of faith–which are professions of the deposit of faith, it follows that he has authority over other professions of faith, including the liturgy. There are no doctrinal errors in the new rite so it was a legitimate revision and/or introduction by the pope.

More from Pius XII:

"50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. "

1. Several causes, really have been instrumental in the progress and development of the sacred liturgy during the long and glorious life of the Church.
2. Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ’s people more readily.
3. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters."

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

This passage from St. Pius V’s Quo Primum seems to give the Holy See the authority concerning local liturgical tradition:

"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, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.
All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, 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 under the penalty of Our displeasure.

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."

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

Bl. Pius IX also seems to reserve authority over all rites to the Apostolic See in his encyclical Omnem Sollicitudinem:

"Therefore, as this same Supreme Pontiff declared, “that rule must be absolutely observed which states that, except for the most serious reasons and with the Apostolic See, no innovations are to be introduced into the holy rites of the liturgy, even under the pretext of restoring ceremonies which may seem to be more in conformity with liturgies approved by the same See.”

(We may disagree that the changes made were done for a serious reason, but it can be done with approval of the Holy See–why would this be if the Holy See did not have authority over even local rites?)

Again, he seems to give the Apostolic See authority over liturgical rites:

“Some of these rites have been used from time immemorial, others solemnly confirmed by the sanction of the Synod of Zamosi, which had the approbation of the Apostolic See.”

And again, we see that even organic changes are subject to the Apostolic See–how could statements like this be made if the Pope did not have authority over the liturgy?

“Our Predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, have frequently and purposefully agreed to approve or permit those rites insofar as they in no way oppose the Catholic faith nor cause danger to souls nor derogate from ecclesiastical dignity.”[8] At the same time these canons have solemnly declared that no one whosoever, without consultation with this Holy See, may introduce even the slightest innovations into the liturgy."

Of course, whether the above authorities would have agreed with the changes made is a different issue (I am pretty sure they would not have), but they do state the authority to make such changes.

 

[Genesis315]

Also, in St. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England, he dscribes how St. Gregory told St. Augustine of Canterbury to compose a new liturgical rite for the people of England–St. Agustine simply chose to use the Roman Rite, but the permission is there.

 

[labernadette]

Most explicitly, Pius XII says that the liturgy is subject to the authority of the pope in his encyclical Mediator Dei:

1. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

---

1. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
2. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

---

1. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

He is pretty clear on the liturgical changes by the Apostolic See as being legitimate.

continued…

Please provide your source.

 

[HenryV]

Please provide your source.

I think he just did the encyclical Mediator Dei of pope Pius XII

 

[labernadette]

I think he just did the encyclical Mediator Dei of pope Pius XII

Oh, really? This from Mediator Dei:

Such “a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass” had already been noticed and condemned in the liturgical movement which preceded the Second Vatican Council. In Mediator Dei (1947) Pope Pius XII had written,

we observe with considerable anxiety ...that...certain enthusiasts, over eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact, they interlard their plans and hopes for a revival of the sacred Liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it with errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical doctrine (§8).

realnews247.com/sspx_mediator_dei.htm

You might want to order this:angeluspress.org/index.php?act=warehouse&info=5307

Mediator Dei was a reprimand to INNOVATORS.

 

[AJV]

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

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

Same as this:

Therefore it is permitted for no man at all to infringe, or to rashly oppose this notice of our removal, abolition, permission, revocation, command, precept, statute, indult, mandate, decree, relaxation, exhortation, prohibition, imposition, and will. (1)

And if anyone shall presume to attack this, let him know he will incur the anger of almighty God, and of Peter and Paul his Apostles.(2)

which was nullified in 1911.

Papal documents had a set of clauses appended to the end of important documents some from around the time of Gregory the Great in order that the will if the Pope be carried out. Such clauses are used in many documents ranging from confirmation of privileges or concessions granted to suppressions or elevations of places or persons or societies in rank.

The first clause (marked (1) above) is the Prohibitive Clause known as “Nulli ergo hominum liceat” . Another form reads “Decernimus ergo ut nulli omnio”

The second clause (marked (2) above) is the Penal Clause, the Si Quis. This is the part which usually contains the warnings of the indignation of God and Ss. Peter and Paul. Some Papal bulls also contain another type which is known as “Quincunque autem” and which specifies that despite contradtiction to remain “established and firm”

The last clause which is a little rarer is the Benedictio. Essentially, as the name says, it promises blessings to those who obey the papal mandate.

 

[batteddy]

Papal documents had a set of clauses appended to the end of important documents some from around the time of Gregory the Great in order that the will if the Pope be carried out. Such clauses are used in many documents ranging from confirmation of privileges or concessions granted to suppressions or elevations of places or persons or societies in rank.

Exactly. They are NOT meant to mean that it is some sort of dogmatic declaration, or that future Popes are bound by it.

It was a traditional formality…you’d think alledged trads would know that…but they seem to just take it literally in their own wishful thinking.

 

[bear06]

Oh, really? This from Mediator Dei:

Such “a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass” had already been noticed and condemned in the liturgical movement which preceded the Second Vatican Council. In Mediator Dei (1947) Pope Pius XII had written,

we observe with considerable anxiety ...that...certain enthusiasts, over eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact, they interlard their plans and hopes for a revival of the sacred Liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it with errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical doctrine (§8).

realnews247.com/sspx_mediator_dei.htm

You might want to order this:angeluspress.org/index.php?act=warehouse&info=5307

Mediator Dei was a reprimand to INNOVATORS.

One might want to read the whole document and not just was the sspx/angelus press has to say about it. MD not only condemns the innovators but it also condems the antiquarians. The document actually tells who it is aimed at:

1. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

1. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
2. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

I wonder why the SSPX doesn’t quote these parts? Oh yeah, it might just show that it is the Holy See that actually has disrection over the liturgy and that the people MD condems are those who make changes to it that are against the prevailing laws and rubrics

 

[BobP123]

It was a traditional formality…you’d think alledged trads would know that…but they seem to just take it literally in their own wishful thinking.

I hope you’re not referring to the committee of 9 Cardinals Pope John Paul assembled to address the status of the Tridentine Mass, only to find Quo Primum had not been abrogated.

 

[labernadette]

One might want to read the whole document and not just was the sspx/angelus press has to say about it. MD not only condemns the innovators but it also condems the antiquarians. The document actually tells who it is aimed at:

I wonder why the SSPX doesn’t quote these parts? Oh yeah, it might just show that it is the Holy See that actually has disrection over the liturgy and that the people MD condems are those who make changes to it that are against the prevailing laws and rubrics

[Edited by Moderator]

In this part of your above quote:

1. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with ***several of the rites ***may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

I took the liberty of bolding what SHOULD have been bolded. This is a direct reference to the Eastern Rites, and any one worth their salt should be aware of this.

 

[batteddy]

I hope you’re not referring to the committee of 9 Cardinals Pope John Paul assembled to address the status of the Tridentine Mass, only to find Quo Primum had not been abrogated.

No. I’m not saying it was formally abrogated.

Just that it COULD be.

The quote, “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,” is a traditional formality of the papal court. It is not meant to bind future popes or forbid them from changing it.

Furthermore, Quo Primum’s not being officially abrogated is sort of a moot point…as it was still replaced. The declaration Pius V gave promulgating it said it was free from error, and was to be used throughout the Latin rite. But it was not a blanket permission for any priest anywhere to use it. Obviously, the Eastern Catholic priets would have had to get special permission, as do Latin Rite priests today per the promulgation of the new missal as binding and the indult requirments of Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.

 

[AJV]

[Edited by Moderator]

In this part of your above quote:

1. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with ***several of the rites ***may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

I took the liberty of bolding what SHOULD have been bolded. This is a direct reference to the Eastern Rites, and any one worth their salt should be aware of this.

I thought he meant “rites” as in ceremonies? It’s not capitalised. Which kind-of cooroborates the vernacular permissions given under his pontificate in the 1950’s to many countries.

He does also sort of imply it-

If in this encyclical letter We treat chiefly of the Latin liturgy, it is not because We esteem less highly the venerable liturgies of the Eastern Church, whose ancient and honorable ritual traditions are just as dear to Us. The reason lies rather in a special situation prevailing in the Western Church, of sufficient importance, it would seem, to require this exercise of Our authority.

Also whenever he directly refers to the East he does so under the (correct) term of Eastern Churches. When he says “where the liturgical rites of the Western and Eastern Church” he is speaking of the “sacred rites”

I would like to post all the references but if one looks through the encyclical, I think it is clearer (or maybe it is only to me ) that he is speaking of the ceremonies including the sacraments rather than Rites.

 

[ncjohn]

You might want to stop playing your games of deceiving, as it is obvious you hold contempt for the SSPX and wish to undermine them at every turn.

I have to wonder who is deceiving whom here. I questioned you once, after a statement you made about not being part of the conciliar Church, about whether you were in full communion with the post Vatican II Church, and you claimed that you were, but observed the old traditions.

Yet since that time, pretty much every post I see from you references SSPX sources, and continues to espouse positions outside what the Church under the current Pope teaches.

I don’t think that Bear is trying “undermine” the SSPX, so much as she is making clear that the SSPX positions on this matter do not reflect Church teaching. If you want to state what you think they should be, and are doing so from position outside full communion, that is fine as long as you are honest about the position you are speaking from. To claim to be in full communion however and claim that the Church is teaching something that it clearly is not, is not honest.

I personally don’t care whether you are in full communion or not, as it is clear that you are a devoted and dedicated child of God. I do wish though that you would make clear what position you are coming from so people will not be confused. It is impossible to debate a subject where the participants are coming from a totally different frame of reference and in which there is a difference on the accepted foundation. Those points must be clear before any meaningful discussion can take place.

Peace,