Quo Primum

  • Thread starter Thread starter CradleCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CradleCath

Guest
I joined this forum a few months ago & just want to say that the majority who post here are very well informed about their faith. This is why I’m bringing up the Papal Bull of 1570 (approximately 30 yrs. after the Council of Trent). I would like your “take” on it. I am wondering if you’ve discussed Quo Primum before? If so, you’ll probably be bored by the repetition, but I’m wanting to see how others read this…

Following is an excerpt from Quo Primum:
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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. **
Click to expand...
And here’s the link to the complete document.
unavoce.org/quoprim.htm

I know that in the late 1980’s the Pope formed a comission of 9 Cardinals…Pope Benedict, then a Cardinal, was part of this commission… to study the status of the Latin Mass. They reported back that the Traditional Latin Mass had not been surpressed. Upon what authority did our hierarchy base their decision to disallow it here in the US? Not even the indult budged my old Bishop. Maybe your experience has been different??

Since Archbishop Burke came to my diocese, it’s been much better…still, actually having a Latin Mass in my **suburb **was only a dream before the Motu Proprio. Now, it’s celebrated here EVERY Sunday at 12:30. Thanks be to God & Pope Benedict.
 
A pope cannot bind his successors on a disciplinary matter, which is what the “always valid” language in Quo Primum means.

An argument could be made (if someone wanted to, which I don’t at present) that Paul VI was *imprudent *in his judgement to attempt the suppression of the old Mass, or even if he intended to suppress it. But whether he had the power to do so…

All of which is neither here nor there since Summorum Pontificum makes the whole uproar moot. Every priest of the Roman Rite has the right to say Mass according to the Missal of 1962 or 1970 as he chooses, attempts by some bishops to narrowly interpret the language notwithstanding. Period. Time to move on to more pressing issues in my opinion.
 
The issue of Quo Primum does get mentioned frequently here.
The bottom line is, however, that Quo Primum is not an infallible pronouncement of a revealed truth, but a disciplinary document. It issued a command to celebrate mass according to a certain missal. Disciplinary laws are subject to the pope’s authority. All popes have equal authority, so a pope can alter, dispense from, or abrogate a previous pope’s disciplinary laws.

Quo Primum uses strong language to make the point that everyone under the pope, no matter what rank, was bound to obey this document, which had no “expiration date”. If you are familiar with such documents, you will see that he was not intending to bind future popes, as some people today mistakenly think. Phrases such “in perpetuity” mean that the document is valid indefinitely, that is, it will never expire on its own. This does not prevent a future pope from altering or abrogating it, however.

For those who are still skeptical, they should look at the papal bull Quod a Vobis, also issued by Pope Pius V. It used the same type of strong language to order clergy to use the revised breviary. It issued the same condemnations to those who refused. But Pope Pius X abrogated this document with Divino Afflatu, when he promulgated a new breviary.

Some people think that Quo Primum still binds, and that’s why Pope Benedict said that the TLM was never abrogated. That’s incorrect - the actual document Quo Primum was abrogated by Pope Paul VI, but not the mass itself. He did not abrogate the traditional mass, nor did he intend to, he just put restrictions on its use when he promulgated the new mass - restrictions later lifted by Pope Benedict.
 
CC,

Anyone who tells you Quo Primum is infallible is speading bull (and I don’t mean the papal kind). If a pope could bind his successors, that would mean that every pope was less “powerful” than his predecessors.

Really, steer clear of the whole Quo Primum bunch. You’ll be glad you did.

John

PS: While I am not remotely interested in attending another Latin Mass in my lifetime, I am delighted for all those who love the so-called “Mass of the Ages” that they have an opportunity to easily find a Mass that calls to their brand of piety.
 
CradleCath said:
I joined this forum a few months ago & just want to say that the majority who post here are very well informed about their faith. This is why I’m bringing up the Papal Bull of 1570 (approximately 30 yrs. after the Council of Trent). I would like your “take” on it. I am wondering if you’ve discussed Quo Primum before? If so, you’ll probably be bored by the repetition, but I’m wanting to see how others read this…

Yes, it has been discussed before. You can use the search this forum function and it’ll probably bring up those conversations. My “take” on it resembles this:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM
Click to expand...
 
CradleCath said:
I
I know that in the late 1980’s the Pope formed a comission of 9 Cardinals…Pope Benedict, then a Cardinal, was part of this commission… to study the status of the Latin Mass. They reported back that the Traditional Latin Mass had not been surpressed. Upon what authority did our hierarchy base their decision to disallow it here in the US? Not even the indult budged my old Bishop. Maybe your experience has been different??

Since Archbishop Burke came to my diocese, it’s been much better…
still, actually having a Latin Mass in my suburb was only a dream before the Motu Proprio. Now, it’s celebrated here EVERY Sunday at 12:30. Thanks be to God & Pope Benedict.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt in my mind that the TLM has been protected by the Holy Spirit. There is no other explanation for the fact that it has not been abrogated in spite of the hatred of this Mass by priests, Bishops and Cardinals in the 1960’s as well today.
Father Bugnini who oversaw the writing of the Novus Ordo said in 1965, “Signs and rites are likely to become incrusted by time, that is, to grow old and outmoded… the Liturgy feeds the Church’s life; it must therefore remain dynamic and not be allowed to stagnate or become petrified… The Missal of Pius V was definitely abrogated "
The fact that those who saw the TLM as " old, outmoded and petrified" and still failed to abrogate the Traditional Mass shows that something mystical has happenned to protect it.
Pope Pius V could walk the earth today and say the Traditional Mass. It is still intact, still vibrant and no priest can be forbidden to say it just as he decreed in* Quo Primum*.
Click to expand...
 
I believe it is called the Tridentine Mass, not the Quo Primum Mass. It is misleading, therefore, to say that Pope Pius V promulgated the Latin Mass. Those that say that the Quo Primum Mass can be abrogated are correct in their assessment; however no Pope to my knowledge has ever called it that.

Now if one calls it the Missal of Pius V or 1570 Missal, certainly it can be replaced by a later missal, such as the Missal of John XXIII. And as Pope Benedict has allowed the 1962 Missal to stand without changes, save for the Triduum prayers.
 
ProVobis said:
I believe it is called the Tridentine Mass, not the Quo Primum Mass. It is misleading, therefore, to say that Pope Pius V promulgated the Latin Mass. Those that say that the Quo Primum Mass can be abrogated are correct in their assessment; however no Pope to my knowledge has ever called it that.

Now if one calls it the Missal of Pius V or 1570 Missal, certainly it can be replaced by a later missal, such as the Missal of John XXIII. And as Pope Benedict has allowed the 1962 Missal to stand without changes, save for the Triduum prayers.
Click to expand...
Who has called it the “Quo Primum Mass?” It is often called the Traditional Latim Mass or Tridentine Mass or the Extraordinary Form. If it’s the Missal of John XXIII or the 1962 Missal, were still talking about the same Mass with such minor differences that one wouldn’t even notice.Even Pope PIus V would have approved of the minor organic changes to the Mass.

The fact of the matter is that the TLM has not or never was abrogated. Everything in *Quo Primum *still stands. The Novus Ordo was a New Rite, a New Order of the Mass. The TLM was left untouched. It still exists today just as it did in 1970 and just as it did in 1570. Pope Paul did not make any changes to the TLM. He approved a new rite.
 
That’s the rub. The Novus Ordo Mass was not ordered by, did not come out of, or approved by any council, unless its supporters claim that a council gave them a blank check to do so. The Council of Trent certainly didn’t grant any blank checks. For this reason, the current or future Pope would have more legal freedom to abrogate the New Rite or the Ordinary Form as it stands. (However, it still may have some pastoral value which would probably save it.) On the other hand it has been demonstrated that the Mass of Trent could not be legally abrogated, Quo Primum or no Quo Primum.
 
ProVobis said:
That’s the rub. The Novus Ordo Mass was not ordered by, did not come out of, or approved by any council, unless its supporters claim that a council gave them a blank check to do so. The Council of Trent certainly didn’t grant any blank checks. For this reason, the current or future Pope would have more legal freedom to abrogate the New Rite or the Ordinary Form as it stands. (However, it still may have some pastoral value which would probably save it.) On the other hand it has been demonstrated that the Mass of Trent could not be legally abrogated, Quo Primum or no Quo Primum.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct. The New Mass was never approved by the Vatican II council. Did Pope Paul have the authority to install a new rite? Of course. Was it wise to do so? That is debatable.Would it have been better if Pope Paul had changed the Mass slowly over time as has alway been done throughout the history of the Church. I believe so.

Cardinal Ratzinger The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166
“The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top