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

[AlexV]

The Roman “Canon” (Canon = Greek for RULE) is the CORE of our Roman Rite.

That Rite was inherited by the Holy Father. Popes don’t abolish rites, they instead foster them.

Discipline is whether we have to fast one hour or three or none. Discipline is whether we can have Masses after 1:00 pm or only before.

The Roman Canon isn’t “discipline” - it’s the most precious treasure of the Roman Rite, a part of Catholic patrimony. The pope can’t merely wipe it out of existence because he chooses to do so.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Roman “Canon” (Canon = Greek for RULE) is the CORE of our Roman Rite.

That Rite was inherited by the Holy Father. Popes don’t abolish rites, they instead foster them.

Discipline is whether we have to fast one hour or three or none. Discipline is whether we can have Masses after 1:00 pm or only before.

The Roman Canon isn’t “discipline” - it’s the most precious treasure of the Roman Rite, a part of Catholic patrimony. The pope can’t merely wipe it out of existence because he chooses to do so.

The pope HAS the authority to keep it, alter it, or dispense with it. Again, I’m not saying it would be a good idea, but it’s rather like launching a nuclear bomb. Whether we think the president should do so or not is of course an important debate, but the president actually does possess that power. Whether he ever exercises it or not, he still has that authority.

Popes have suppressed rites (Pope St. Pius V did, as I know you know). You’re arguing that by virtue of it’s antiquity, the Roman Canon cannot be altered. I’m not seeing that. You’re arguing that it is more than discipline, but it is clearly NOT a matter of faith and morals in terms of specific moral teaching or divine revelation. Anything other than that can change, though more often than not, it probably shouldn’t.

 

[AlexV]

Pius V didn’t suppress any ancient Rites. He fostered them. Anything that had existed as of 1370 was saved. There were no “Rites” invented after that.

You want to think the pope can suppress the Roman Canon, go ahead. As you say, this is silly because no pope ever would.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Pius V didn’t suppress any ancient Rites. He fostered them. Anything that had existed as of 1370 was saved. There were no “Rites” invented after that.

You want to think the pope can suppress the Roman Canon, go ahead. As you say, this is silly because no pope ever would.

Well, he did suppress rites that old if they hadn’t been in continuous use in the locality, but anyhooo…

Does this paragraph sound like the text of the Roman Canon was revealed and passed on to posterity, or that slowly developed as different worship traditions were fused into a text codified centuries after the death of Christ?:

St. Gregory certainly found the Canon that has been already discussed, arranged in the same order, and in possession for centuries. When was it put together? It is certainly not the work of one man, nor was it all composed at one time. Gregory himself thought that the Canon had been composed by "a certain Scholasticus (Epp., lib. VII, no. lxiv, or lib. IX, no. xii), and Benedict XIV discusses whether he meant some person so named or merely “a certain learned man” (De SS. Missæ sacr., 157). But our Canon represents rather the last stage of a development that had been going on gradually ever since the first days when the Roman Christians met together to obey Christ’s command and celebrate the Eucharist in memory of Him. Here a distinction must be made between the prayers of the Canon itself and the order in which they are now found. The prayers, or at least some of them, can be traced back to a very early date from occasional references in letters of Fathers. From this it does not follow that they always stood in the same order as now. Their arrangement in our present Missal presents certain difficulties and has long been a much-disputed point. It is very possible that at some unknown period – perhaps in the fifth century – the Canon went through a complete alteration in its order and that its component prayers, without being changed in themselves, were turned round and re-arranged. This theory, as will be seen, would account for many difficulties. newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

The pope HAS the authority to keep it, alter it, or dispense with it. Again, I’m not saying it would be a good idea, but it’s rather like launching a nuclear bomb. Whether we think the president should do so or not is of course an important debate, but the president actually does possess that power. Whether he ever exercises it or not, he still has that authority.

Popes have suppressed rites (Pope St. Pius V did, as I know you know). You’re arguing that by virtue of it’s antiquity, the Roman Canon cannot be altered. I’m not seeing that. You’re arguing that it is more than discipline, but it is clearly NOT a matter of faith and morals in terms of specific moral teaching or divine revelation. Anything other than that can change, though more often than not, it probably shouldn’t.

The Canon, by which I mean the consecratory prayer was given by Christ, while He walked the earth, and personally present with the disciples. Now we can’t dispense with the Gospel, nor the words of Christ:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q. 78, A. 1, on the form of this sacrament: "Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): “The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ’s words that perfect this sacrament.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439: “The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood. In such wise, however, that the whole Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form of wine, under any part of the consecrated host as well as after division of the consecrated wine, there is the whole Christ.”

Thus, if we alter that part of the Canon, the Mass could no longer be called the “Divine Liturgy”, it could then be called the Liturgy of Man, since it would be a man-made thing, and no longer that handed down by Christ.
The form for the confection of the sacrament was given infallibly by the Council of Florence:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 11 “Cantate Domino”, Feb. 4, 1442: " However, since no explanation was given… in respect of the form of words which the holy Roman church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord’s body and blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord’s body: For this is my body. And of his blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins .

Ergo, this being the case, no Pope can invent novelties concerning the form and substance of the sacraments:

Pope St. Pius X, Ex quo, Dec. 26, 1910:
“it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments”

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis (# 1), Nov. 30, 1947:
“the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments,’ that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign…”

Ergo, the Pope does not have authority to innovate concerning the sacraments, Eternal truths do not change:

“I am the Lord and I change not.” (Malachias 3:6)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Canon, by which I mean the consecratory prayer was given by Christ, while He walked the earth, and personally present with the disciples. Now we can’t dispense with the Gospel, nor the words of Christ:

Thus, if we alter that part of the Canon, the Mass could no longer be called the “Divine Liturgy”, it could then be called the Liturgy of Man, since it would be a man-made thing, and no longer that handed down by Christ.
The form for the confection of the sacrament was given infallibly by the Council of Florence:

Ergo, this being the case, no Pope can invent novelties concerning the form and substance of the sacraments:

Ergo, the Pope does not have authority to innovate concerning the sacraments, Eternal truths do not change:

We were talking about the entire canon, NOT the words of conscecration.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

We were talking about the entire canon, NOT the words of conscecration.

I stated that in specific reference to this:

The pope HAS the authority to keep it, alter it, or dispense with it.

The words present in my above post refer to that central portion 'round which the rest of the Mass revolves, the central point, the climax if you will, and that most solemn portion cannot be altered or dispensed with. The Pope does not have the Authority to revoke the words of God, or to alter them, that would be like editing the scriptures, words inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit would not alter, or “update” its own words. The Pope may interpret them, he may expound on them, but he cannot alter or throw them out. But don’t get me wrong, I do see your point, and I realize that you were discussing the canon of the Mass as a whole, but the most significant part cannot be overlooked, nor included in a general statement which does not apply to it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I stated that in specific reference to this:

The words present in my above post refer to that central portion 'round which the rest of the Mass revolves, the central point, the climax if you will, and that most solemn portion cannot be altered or dispensed with. The Pope does not have the Authority to revoke the words of God, or to alter them, that would be like editing the scriptures, words inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit would not alter, or “update” its own words. The Pope may interpret them, he may expound on them, but he cannot alter or throw them out. But don’t get me wrong, I do see your point, and I realize that you were discussing the canon of the Mass as a whole, but the most significant part cannot be overlooked, nor included in a general statement which does not apply to it.

I agree.

 

[stmaria]

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.

Haven’t the words of Consecration been changed? The Council of Trent declared that its Catechism contains dogmas of faith.

Catechism Council of Trent
Nature of this work……But the Fathers deemed it of the first importance that a work should appear, sanctioned by the authority of the Council…. as there is one Lord, one faith, there may also be one standard and prescribed form of propounding the dogmas of faith, and instructing Christians in all the duties of piety.”

Catechism council of Trent

Form of the Eucharist
With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: **This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. **Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this,** it is plain that no other words constitute the form. **

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added,* And for many*, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Haven’t the words of Consecration been changed? The Council of Trent declared that its Catechism contains dogmas of faith.

Catechism Council of Trent
Nature of this work……But the Fathers deemed it of the first importance that a work should appear, sanctioned by the authority of the Council…. as there is one Lord, one faith, there may also be one standard and prescribed form of propounding the dogmas of faith, and instructing Christians in all the duties of piety.”

Catechism council of Trent

Form of the Eucharist
With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: **This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. **Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this,** it is plain that no other words constitute the form. **

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added,* And for many*, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

The Church gave the answer to your concern. The essential form was NOT changed. You can look up the response on the Vatican website.

 

[BobP123]

With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: **This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. **Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this,** it is plain that no other words constitute the form. **

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added,* And for many*, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

The Pope agrees with you. I can only add this:

John:17 -7Now they know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are from thee: 8for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received them, and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me. 9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine: 10and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them.

 

[stmaria]

The Church gave the answer to your concern. The essential form was NOT changed. You can look up the response on the Vatican website.

So when Trent declared that its Catechism contains Dogmas of Faith, that means nothing? Does Dogma change? Does Dogma evolve?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So when Trent declared that its Catechism contains Dogmas of Faith, that means nothing? Does Dogma change? Does Dogma evolve?

Dogmas do not change. The essential form of sacraments also do not change.

When Trent anathematized anyone who said that the disciplines enacted by the Church in the ordering of her sacraments were capable of leading the faithful to impiety, that means nothing?

 

[stmaria]

Dogmas do not change. The essential form of sacraments also do not change.

When Trent anathematized anyone who said that the disciplines enacted by the Church in the ordering of her sacraments were capable of leading the faithful to impiety, that means nothing?

You are right. Dogma does not change.
The *Catechism of Trent *is not about discipline. In the words of the Fathers at Trent in contains Dogmas of Faith: “But the Fathers deemed it of the first importance that a work should appear, sanctioned by the authority of the Council…. as there is one Lord, one faith, there may also be one standard and prescribed form of propounding the dogmas of faith, and instructing Christians in all the duties of piety.”

The Catechism declares that the words of Consecration are these, “ This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins”

The Catechism further states “ Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that **no other words **constitute the form. "

Let us not forget that in 2006 the Vatican admitted that it had erred in the translation of “pro multis”. Who knows, maybe Pope Benedict will change the words of Consecration in the New Mass back to those used in the Traditional Mass.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You are right. Dogma does not change.
The *Catechism of Trent *is not about discipline. In the words of the Fathers at Trent in contains Dogmas of Faith: “But the Fathers deemed it of the first importance that a work should appear, sanctioned by the authority of the Council…. as there is one Lord, one faith, there may also be one standard and prescribed form of propounding the dogmas of faith, and instructing Christians in all the duties of piety.”

The Catechism declares that the words of Consecration are these, “ This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins”

The Catechism further states “ Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that **no other words **constitute the form. "

Let us not forget that in 2006 the Vatican admitted that it had erred in the translation of “pro multis”. Who knows, maybe Pope Benedict will change the words of Consecration in the New Mass back to those used in the Traditional Mass.

The Vatican did NOT admit that it erred. Reread the statement. It stated clearly that the masses using “for all” were undoubtedly valid.

“2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all”, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).”

adoremus.org/Arinze_ProMultis.html

 

[stmaria]

The Vatican did NOT admit that it erred. Reread the statement. It stated clearly that the masses using “for all” were undoubtedly valid.

“2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all”, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).”

adoremus.org/Arinze_ProMultis.html

I never said anything about validty .On November 18, 2006 Catholic World News reported “The Vatican has ruled that the phrase *pro multis *should be rendered as ‘for many’ in all new translations of the Eucharistic Prayer.” The operative word is ruled. According to CWN, Cardinal Francis Arinze, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, “has written to the heads of world’s episcopal conferences, informing them of the Vatican decision” and further directing “the bishops to prepare for the introduction of a new translation of the phrase in approved liturgical texts ‘in the next one or two years.’”

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please return to the original topic. Thank you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I never said anything about validty .On November 18, 2006 Catholic World News reported “The Vatican has ruled that the phrase *pro multis *should be rendered as ‘for many’ in all new translations of the Eucharistic Prayer.” The operative word is ruled. According to CWN, Cardinal Francis Arinze, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, “has written to the heads of world’s episcopal conferences, informing them of the Vatican decision” and further directing “the bishops to prepare for the introduction of a new translation of the phrase in approved liturgical texts ‘in the next one or two years.’”

You said the Holy See admitted theat they were wrong. They didn’t. It’s an important distinction.

 

[stmaria]

You said the Holy See admitted theat they were wrong. They didn’t. It’s an important distinction.

So why are they going to change it?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So why are they going to change it?

Why did they allow it?