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

[thistle]

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 form of the Liturgy is not a doctrine. As far as I know ,apart from the consecration, the form of the Liturgy can be changed and one Pope cannot bind another in this.

 

[BobP123]

The form of the Liturgy is not a doctrine.

So you wouldn’t have any problems if Pope Benedict were to decide today to abrogate every vernacular of the liturgy “promulgated” by Paul VI?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So you wouldn’t have any problems if Pope Benedict were to decide today to abrogate every vernacular of the liturgy “promulgated” by Paul VI?

Sure, there’d be problems. The topic, however, is whether or not the pope’s got the authority. He does.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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.

Quite the contrary; we seem to have here an obvious reference to certain Latin ceremonies (e.g., the Rite of Baptism, the Rite of Confirmation), perhaps some of those set forth in the Roman Ritual.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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?

You must realize that trying to claim Quo Primum as a dogmatic/doctrinal definition is absurd on at least two counts.

First, dogmas a revealed truths. The deposit of faith was revealed definitively in Christ and public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. So are you trying to say that about the beginning of the 2nd century God had already revealed to man that a) beginning in 1570 b) no priest of the Roman rite would be able to say Mass according to anything but the missal promulgated by Pius V in that year unless c) he belonged to certain classes of people using books that had been approved and in continuous use for 200 years or more. So maybe it’s not dogma, it’s just a doctrine. In that case you’re claiming we can somehow deduce a, b, and c from the deposit of faith. Just as odd a claim, and one I highly doubt you are trying to make.

Second, arrogating infallibility to the disciplinary measures of Quo Primum would make you so radically sedevacantist it’s not even funny. This follows from the fact that all of our popes since 1604 (Clement VIII) have used a slightly different missal. We haven’t had a Catholic hieararchy since the early 17th century - and still don’t! - because even the “modernist-sedevacantists” use, say, the 1955 missal or some other 20th century edition, a far cry from the 1570 text. All in all, a fairly laughable assertion.

PS - don’t tell me that in appealing to the authority of Trent, which made no claims to the perpetual status of the revised editions for which it called, you’re becoming some sort of conciliarist. No appeal, including to a council, can be made to a pope’s decisions, so disciplinary this makes no difference and doctrinally, well, we just covered that.

 

[BobP123]

I appreciate the comments. Lots of hypotheticals. But in answer to the OP, nothing non-doctrinal is binding upon a future Pope, including anything that comes out of a council. But we also trust that future Popes will respect their predecessors to some extent as well. Legalities aside, do we really expect no Catholics to leave if, for example, BXVI were to overturn PaulVI in matters of communion in the hand or no women in the sanctuary? And if they do leave, would we be so quick to call them all schismatics?

Just trying to be fair to both sides.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Lots of hypotheticals. But in answer to the OP, nothing non-doctrinal is binding upon a future Pope, including anything that comes out of a council. But we also trust that future Popes will respect their predecessors to some extent as well. Legalities aside, do we really expect no Catholics to leave if, for example, BXVI were to overturn PaulVI in matters of communion in the hand or no women in the sanctuary? And if they do leave, would we be so quick to call them all schismatics?

If they leave the Church? Yes, I’d call them a schismatic. I wouldn’t be thrilled about it and I hope I’d avoid a triumphalistic attitude, but there’s no point in beating around the bush. If one seperates one’s self from the Church, one is a schismatic. One may also be a formal heretic.

 

[BobP123]

I just ran across this quote from the traditio website. (Yes, I know I shouldn’t be reading there. ) But it’s a quote from Cardinal Stickler and I remember reading it from other sources as well.

ALFONS CARDINAL STICKLER
Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library
Peritus (Expert) to Four Vatican II Commissions

    "Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine
    cardinals two questions.  Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any
    other competent authority, legally forbid the widespread
    celebration of the Tridentine [Traditional Latin] Mass in
    the present day?  The answer given by eight of the cardinals
    in 1986 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been
    suppressed.  I can say this; I was one of the cardinals.

    "There was another question, very interesting.  Can any 
    bishop forbid a priest in good standing from celebrating a
    Tridentine Mass again?  The nine cardinals unanimously
    agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from
    saying the Tridentine Mass.  **We have no official publication,
    and I think that the Pope would never establish an official
    prohibition ... because of the words of [Pope St.] Pius V, who 
    said this was a Mass forever."**

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I just ran across this quote from the traditio website. (Yes, I know I shouldn’t be reading there. ) But it’s a quote from Cardinal Stickler and I remember reading it from other sources as well.

Regarding the quote by HE Alphonse Cardinal Stickler:

I also very much doubt that any pope would suppress the Tridentine Mass entirely. But the Cardinal does not assert that a pope could not.

 

[AlexV]

Ultimately this topic of what a pope can do or not becomes very silly.

After all…those who are papal maximalists get into the corner of, “Could a pope order that no priest of the Roman Rite may ever use the Roman Canon?”

Clearly anyone with the sensus fidei would answer, “No.” But the papal maximalist will try to torture a “Yes”, as if the liturgy is a papal plaything rather than something he has inherited and must guard…not discard.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ultimately this topic of what a pope can do or not becomes very silly.

After all…those who are papal maximalists get into the corner of, “Could a pope order that no priest of the Roman Rite may ever use the Roman Canon?”

Clearly anyone with the sensus fidei would answer, “No.” But the papal maximalist will try to torture a “Yes”, as if the liturgy is a papal plaything rather than something he has inherited and must guard…not discard.

Clearly to SOME the sensus fidei would answer “no.” To those who have read the history, teachings, and traditions of the Church (not to mention those who can access canon law), the sensus fidei would be “yes” (mostly because they don’t keeping stumbling over the difference in discipline and dogma/doctrine and mostly because that’s how the Church herself understands the matter). And I very much doubt if those loyal to the Church regard the liturgy as a papal plaything.

 

[batteddy]

Clearly anyone with the sensus fidei would answer, “No.” But the papal maximalist will try to torture a “Yes”, as if the liturgy is a papal plaything rather than something he has inherited and must guard…not discard.

Well, sure he could. That’s the whole point of papal supremacy in matters of discipline. Should he, no. But there is nothing in natural or divine law prohibiting it, even if it is imprudent. It is not a part of faith or morals, though a disaster from an administrative standpoint. But popes can clearly make administrative mistakes.

 

[AJV]

I just ran across this quote from the traditio website. (Yes, I know I shouldn’t be reading there. ) But it’s a quote from Cardinal Stickler and I remember reading it from other sources as well.

I really would ask them where he said it since they don’t give a source at all. Not that everything has to be with a source but it has been my experience that some of these quotes are not entirely accurate.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ultimately this topic of what a pope can do or not becomes very silly.

After all…those who are papal maximalists get into the corner of, “Could a pope order that no priest of the Roman Rite may ever use the Roman Canon?”

Clearly anyone with the sensus fidei would answer, “No.” But the papal maximalist will try to torture a “Yes”, as if the liturgy is a papal plaything rather than something he has inherited and must guard…not discard.

Sorry, I also meant to add:

The final judge of the sensus fidei is the Church herself. Objectively, there is no other way to know what the sensus fidei actually IS.

 

[AlexV]

Actually, it’s a bit ignorant of Catholic history and tradition to start saying that something like the Roman Canon, of venerable antiquity, can just be jettisoned because a pope says so. But that’s the problem with this recurring, ultimately silly thread…it leads to such corners, because it essentially says the pope can do anything he wants outside of a relatively narrow range.

The sensus fidelium isn’t something reinvented every papal election. It’s something transmitted TO the pope…not created BY him.

If you read Archbishop Bugnini’s book on the liturgy, you will read about this debate over the Roman Canon. Some prelates argued it could not be banned. Bugnini, of course, said if the pope ordered it, it could be.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Actually, it’s a bit ignorant of Catholic history and tradition to start saying that something like the Roman Canon, of venerable antiquity, can just be jettisoned because a pope says so. But that’s the problem with this recurring, ultimately silly thread…it leads to such corners, because it essentially says the pope can do anything he wants outside of a relatively narrow range.

The sensus fidelium isn’t something reinvented every papal election. It’s something transmitted TO the pope…not created BY him.

If you read Archbishop Bugnini’s book on the liturgy, you will read about this debate over the Roman Canon. Some prelates argued it could not be banned. Bugnini, of course, said if the pope ordered it, it could be.

If the Pope decided to jettison the Roman Canon, he has the authority to do so. No one is saying he should, no one is saying it’s a grand idea, but the fact of the matter is that he COULD. It isn’t a part of divine revelation, save the essential form of consecration. If you want to argue,“Never gonna happen!,” then I agree, it isn’t.

As for sensum fidelium, I agree. The pope doesn’t make it up, but the final and objective determiner of what the sesum fidelium is is the magisterium of the Church.

It’s a fallacy in logic to imply that because Buggsy said a thing, it is, by it’s source, incorrect. If Buggsy said the Pope had the authority, Buggsy was right.

 

[AlexV]

And the prelates who said the pope COULDN’T ban the Roman Canon were wrong? Not likely. They didn’t have faulty educations.

They argued the pope could introduce a NEW Canon…as an option…but he couldn’t ban something that was so ancient and fell under the category of venerable custom.

Bugnini disagreed…but then he also tried to argue that the pope could change the words of consecration. Interesting.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And the prelates who said the pope COULDN’T ban the Roman Canon were wrong? Not likely. They didn’t have faulty educations.

They argued the pope could introduce a NEW Canon…as an option…but he couldn’t ban something that was so ancient and fell under the category of venerable custom.

Bugnini disagreed…but then he also tried to argue that the pope could change the words of consecration. Interesting.

He was wrong about that. As for the rest, again, it’s a matter of discipline, not doctrine (though the words we use in our liturgies certainly reflect our doctrine) and the Pope has the authority (whether we’re thrilled with it or not) to alter, impose, or dispense with discipline. The pope could suppress the Roman Canon with no loss to the deposit of faith.

 

[AlexV]

We’ve been over this (tired) ground before. You have a maximalist view of papal authority, which considers almost everything to be “merely disciplinary”.

The Roman Canon isn’t a “mere discipline”. You like to set up a false dichotomy of extremes, where you have the inviolate on one end and the dispensable on the other.

Such a view doesn’t provide a helpful tool for studying Catholic history, which has plenty of gray area.

Nor does the Church provide little index cards that spell out exactly what can and cannot be done.

Hence, in 1967, there was debate among Church prelates over what the pope could do. Clearly the matter isn’t a black and white issue.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We’ve been over this (tired) ground before. You have a maximalist view of papal authority, which considers almost everything to be “merely disciplinary”.

The Roman Canon isn’t a “mere discipline”. You like to set up a false dichotomy of extremes, where you have the inviolate on one end and the dispensable on the other.

Such a view doesn’t provide a helpful tool for studying Catholic history, which has plenty of gray area.

Nor does the Church provide little index cards that spell out exactly what can and cannot be done.

Hence, in 1967, there was debate among Church prelates over what the pope could do. Clearly the matter isn’t a black and white issue.

Yes, we have. You usually bring it up!

You state clearly that it IS a black and white issue, that the Pope CANNOT suppress the Roman Canon. I take the opposing view that he CAN. Our difference stems over whether or not this is a matter of discipline or a matter of doctrine. I realize that the Roman Canon is a liturgy of great antiquity, but it is not a part of divine revelation on the level with doctrine or dogma. Nor have I set up any false dichotomy. The simple fact of the matter is that the Pope CAN dispense with or alter this text. He probably shouldn’t, no, he definitely shouldn’t, but he has the authority to do so. Will he? NO, not any more than he’ll impose that theoretical so beloved by “traditionalists” about jumping jacks at the consecration.

There was also a debate over birth control. Humanae Vitae was issued despite the misgivings of a great number of the world’s bishops. If bishops can be wrong on a matter of faith and morals (as we are bound to believe that they were), how much more so could they be wrong on a matter of discipline?

You’re right. There are no little index cards. There are, however, specific documents that outline the Pope’s authority.