Quo Primum

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wintersdemise
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wintersdemise

Guest
“By these present ordinances and by virtue of our apostolic authority, we give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of mass in any church whatsoever this missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgement or censure, and may be freely and lawfully use…We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this missal; and that this present constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law.” - St. Pius V

My questions is: Was St. Pius V speaking infallibally?

If so, how does The Church justify changing the Mass and Missal?
 
No, he was not.

St. Pius V used similar language when promulgating the Tridentine Breviary a couple of years later.

Nobody said anything when St. Pius X and Pius XI promulgated a revised Breviary with a radically redistributed Psalter, unlike anything previously in the Western office. Why the silence?

In any case, both Breviary and Missal were constantly tinkered with–and not just by the addition of feasts–until the Pauline revision of the Office and Mass.

Did you know that?
 
Hmm, well Pope Benedict did say that the Tridentine Mass was never forbidden - its always been licit. And no one has been coerced into changing it, as far as I know. There’s a new liturgy of the Mass, and a new Missal, but Pius V did not say the Church couldn’t do that. Anyhow, I don’t know if it should be called “infallible” but it certainly sounded binding forever! But perhaps someone more knowledgeable on this will answer.
 
The Missal wasn’t altered, really - instead a different Missal was permitted to be used (that of Paul VI) alongside it.

Remember also that Pius V himself permitted those liturgies which were older than 200 years in his day, and had been in continuous use, to still be said alongside the TLM. So He never envisaged an absolutely homogeneous liturgy.
 
The pope can only speak infallibly about faith or morals. The discipline of which missal to use doesn’t come under either of those headings. Another thing - equals can’t bind equals. One pope can’t enforce an unchangeable disciplinary measure on another pope.
 
Wintersdemise said:
My questions is: Was St. Pius V speaking infallibally?
Click to expand...
Of course not. But then Trent might not have been infallible either when they said no new rites could be introduced as that didn’t/doesn’t pertain to Church doctrine.

However, I could be wrong on this.
 
Cluny said:
No, he was not.

St. Pius V used similar language when promulgating the Tridentine Breviary a couple of years later.

Nobody said anything when St. Pius X and Pius XI promulgated a revised Breviary with a radically redistributed Psalter, unlike anything previously in the Western office. Why the silence?

In any case, both Breviary and Missal were constantly tinkered with–and not just by the addition of feasts–until the Pauline revision of the Office and Mass.

Did you know that?
Click to expand...
I’ve always been surprised by the lack of outcry because, while I know he was undoubtedly a holy man, I can’t help but be somewhat scandalized by the idea of casting aside the liturgical tradition to that extent. In fact, during the 16th century the incredibly popular Quignones breviary was ultimately rejected for, among other things, being insufficiently obedient to the traditional distribution.
 
I’ve always been surprised by the lack of outcry because, while I know he was undoubtedly a holy man, I can’t help but be somewhat scandalized by the idea of casting aside the liturgical tradition to that extent. In fact, during the 16th century the incredibly popular Quignones breviary was ultimately rejected for, among other things, being insufficiently obedient to the traditional distribution.
Precisely my point!

Could it be that there were no complaints about the Breviary of 1910-1911 because it simply didn’t affect the spiritual life of the person in the pew?
 
Cluny said:
Could it be that there were no complaints about the Breviary of 1910-1911 because it simply didn’t affect the spiritual life of the person in the pew?
Click to expand...
IMO, it was probably because the structure wasn’t radically altered. Distribution of psalms and readings is one thing, but the structure itself is another.
 
As stated before, a current pope cannot bind a future pope. If this were so, then why the need for a papacy? Pius V’s grand style of writing was consistent with the style for the times in which he lived.

It is a great fallacy to believe that the Roman Rite was the only liturgy used from the 4th century to the 20th century.
 
Wintersdemise said:
“By these present ordinances and by virtue of our apostolic authority, we give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of mass in any church whatsoever this missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgement or censure, and may be freely and lawfully use…We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this missal; and that this present constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law.” - St. Pius V

My questions is: Was St. Pius V speaking infallibally?

If so, how does The Church justify changing the Mass and Missal?
Click to expand...
This seems to be a problem with Traditional Catholics in general: Poor theology.

The Mass is not and can not change - ever. The Mass is the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In order for it to change, Jesus would have to be sacrificed again in a bloody manner. And while He would be more than willing to undergo sacrific for even the most wretched sinner, out of love for him, He cannot be sacrificed again, for God must be true to His Word: no more sacrifices in the messaniac age, save the thanksgiving offering (the Holy Eucharist).

The thing that changes about the Mass is only the Form of the Mass. There are two Forms: the Ordinary (New Order) and the Extraordinary (Tridentine). This is the decision of Holy Mother Church and we must honor her decision, even if we do not like it, for we are bound to obey the Fourth Commadment, and even Jesus has said: “If you love Me, obey My Commandments.” Furthermore, it would be disrespectful toward Our Lord to dishonor His Holy Sacrifice.
 
Timothysis said:
As stated before, a current pope cannot bind a future pope. If this were so, then why the need for a papacy? Pius V’s grand style of writing was consistent with the style for the times in which he lived.

It is a great fallacy to believe that the Roman Rite was the only liturgy used from the 4th century to the 20th century.
Click to expand...
It’s not really a matter of one Pope binding a future successor but, as Lily said earlier,
Lily M:
Hmm, well Pope Benedict did say that the Tridentine Mass was never forbidden - its always been licit. And no one has been coerced into changing it, as far as I know. There’s a new liturgy of the Mass, and a new Missal, but Pius V did not say the Church couldn’t do that.
Click to expand...
Since the welcome clarification in Summorum Pontificum, there are two forms: the EF, which was never abrogated, and the OF, which was new.
 
Eucharisted said:
The Mass is not and can not change - ever. The Mass is the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
You and I know that. But unless you tell someone that the OF is the Holy Sacrifice, he’ll be hard pressed to figure it out for himself, especially if EPII is used more often than not. .
 
LilyM said:
The Missal wasn’t altered, really - instead a different Missal was permitted to be used (that of Paul VI) alongside it.

Remember also that Pius V himself permitted those liturgies which were older than 200 years in his day, and had been in continuous use, to still be said alongside the TLM. So He never envisaged an absolutely homogeneous liturgy.
Click to expand...
That’s true. He also didn’t say the Church couldn’t adopt a foreign liturgy if that church were to be accepted into the Catholic Church, such as, for example, the Anglican Use Mass.
 
Cluny said:
Precisely my point!

Could it be that there were no complaints about the Breviary of 1910-1911 because it simply didn’t affect the spiritual life of the person in the pew?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that could be the only reason. The various projects of the 16th century saw a lot of chatter among clerics, and it would be the clerics I would have expected to raise their voices - among themselves - in 1910 as well.

The distribution maintained by Pius V (apart from spreading the Psalms of Sunday prime throughout the week) was, by 1910, essentially the only known continuous Roman usage since the early middle ages (well into the middle ages there had been several variant uses within Rome, though this essentially ended when the curial breviary was imposed on the whole Roman Rite), and that usage lasted until Pius X.

Changing a usage dating back most likely to at least Gregory I is doable if on a very small scale, like the change of 1568, but altering it wholesale like we saw in the twentieth century was, in official Roman books, unseen until then. We might have to assume either that the entire clerical world simply cared less about that in 1910 (as if they were thinking “alright, it’s old, but something’s gotta give”) or else we just don’t know about the complaints.
 
I don’t think that could be the only reason.
I’m certainly not saying it was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top