Quo Primum

[Ockham]

“To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” Father Joseph Gelineau

“Take away the Mass, destroy the Church.” Martin Luther

"Martin Luther said, "The Mass is not a sacrifice … call it Benediction, Eucharist, the Lord’s Table, the Lord’s Supper, Memory of the Lord or whatever you like, just so long as you do not dirty it with the name of a Sacrifice."23 16th century Protestant reformer, Thomas Cranmer said: "The use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon; the use of a table to serve men to eat upon.“24 When you line up the New Mass with the Anglican schismatic Book of Common Prayer (1549), they are almost identical; in fact, the Book of Common Prayer is more reverent than the New Mass.” stjosephschurch.net/

 

[JMJ_coder]

It’s one thing to add a saint’s name to the canon. An entirely different thing to change the liturgy from the TLM to the NO.

Either Quo Primum implies that not a single iota of the Missal promulgated can be altered by anyone, period! or it doesn’t. If not a single iota can be altered, then even adding a Saint’s name to the Canon or a new feast day is a grave sin against the Liturgy and many Popes, including Saints Pius V and Pius X, have been guilty of it. If it doesn’t imply this, then Pope Paul VI did have the authority to promulgate the Missal that he did. As another poster noted, it is a difference of degree, not kind.

You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[dmorgan]

Either Quo Primum implies that not a single iota of the Missal promulgated can be altered by anyone, period! or it doesn’t. If not a single iota can be altered, then even adding a Saint’s name to the Canon or a new feast day is a grave sin against the Liturgy and many Popes, including Saints Pius V and Pius X, have been guilty of it. If it doesn’t imply this, then Pope Paul VI did have the authority to promulgate the Missal that he did. As another poster noted, it is a difference of degree, not kind.

You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Not trying to exacerbate the point J, but adding a Saint or two is entirely different than a complete re-write of the order of the Mass. I may be mistaken, and if so I will accept correction but from what I have read no one form Pope St. Pius V to Pope Paul VI authorized a completely new order of the Mass. (And upon reading Sacrosactum Concilium I still fail to find the justification for what was decided in the Consilium that developed the Novus Ordo). That was my original question as to how the Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated as the new OF without abrogating Quo Primum. I accept Mark Thompsons explanation, but with reserve since I still do not fully understand the Canon Law implications of what is and what is not binding as it pertains to Papal decrees. I question whether Pope St. Pius V was merely issuing a Bull, or whether in light of the direction of the Council of Trent on the subject he was restoring and codifying Tradition, which would elevate the Form to part of the Deposit of the Faith, which cannot be changed wholesale. I beg tolerance as I continue to educate myself.

 

[ProVobis]

If not a single iota can be altered, then even adding a Saint’s name to the Canon or a new feast day is a grave sin against the Liturgy and many Popes, including Saints Pius V and Pius X, have been guilty of it.

Yes, we have heard the argument the Pope John XXIII had no authority to insert St. Joseph into the Canon. There was big debate about that and perhaps it broke the ice and got the ball rolling in the direction of total change in the canon, which is, of course, the core of the Mass.

Adding saints or votives or other propers into the Mass normally doesn’t affect its integrity.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Not trying to exacerbate the point J, but adding a Saint or two is entirely different than a complete re-write of the order of the Mass. I may be mistaken, and if so I will accept correction but from what I have read no one form Pope St. Pius V to Pope Paul VI authorized a completely new order of the Mass. (And upon reading Sacrosactum Concilium I still fail to find the justification for what was decided in the Consilium that developed the Novus Ordo). That was my original question as to how the Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated as the new OF without abrogating Quo Primum. I accept Mark Thompsons explanation, but with reserve since I still do not fully understand the Canon Law implications of what is and what is not binding as it pertains to Papal decrees. I question whether Pope St. Pius V was merely issuing a Bull, or whether in light of the direction of the Council of Trent on the subject he was restoring and codifying Tradition, which would elevate the Form to part of the Deposit of the Faith, which cannot be changed wholesale. I beg tolerance as I continue to educate myself.

This has been discussed. Quo Primum does not stat that little changes are ok while major changes are not.

A change is a change, what you are talking about is a matter of degrees of a change.

Either changes are allowed or they are not. Degree of change does not matter.

 

[ProVobis]

Trent specifically anathematized against changing into a new rite. However, in defense of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, it didn’t appear that it had been their intent to form a new rite when assigning Bugnini to reform the Mass.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Trent specifically anathematized against changing into a new rite. However, in defense of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, it didn’t appear that it had been their intent to form a new rite when assigning Bugnini to reform the Mass.

And according to Pope Benedict the OF is not a new rite, it is one of the two forms of the one rite.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Yes, we have heard the argument the Pope John XXIII had no authority to insert St. Joseph into the Canon. There was big debate about that and perhaps it broke the ice and got the ball rolling in the direction of total change in the canon, which is, of course, the core of the Mass.

Adding saints or votives or other propers into the Mass normally doesn’t affect its integrity.

Did this big debate occur at the time, or after the fact (like after Vatican II)?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Trent specifically anathematized against changing into a new rite. However, in defense of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, it didn’t appear that it had been their intent to form a new rite when assigning Bugnini to reform the Mass.

Which particular Canon of Trent are you referring to?

 

[ProVobis]

Session VII, Canon XIII of Trent:

“If any one shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be … changed to other new ones by any pastor of the churches whomsoever: let him be anathema.”*

 

[ProVobis]

And according to Pope Benedict the OF is not a new rite, it is one of the two forms of the one rite.

That is true. However, when the rite was promulgated, Paul VI himself called it the Novus Ordo Missae, the New Order of Mass, though Bugnini objected.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Session VII, Canon XIII of Trent:

This seems to indicate those who would alter the rite “on-the-fly” so to speak, not to those who have the authority to receive and approve the rites. The OF is an approved form of the Mass of the Roman Rite, received and approved by Pope Paul VI. It is equally grave for a Priest to alter the words of the Canon in the OF to suit himself, as an example.

And if that Canon is as you say it is, then Pope Pius V is guilty for he altered the rites when he promulgated Quo Primum (which was chronologically after the Council of Trent).

 

[JMJ_coder]

That is true. However, when the rite was promulgated, Paul VI himself called it the Novus Ordo Missae, the New Order of Mass, though Bugnini objected.

Yes, and in the late 16th century, Pope Saint Pius V issued a New Order of the Mass, in as much as it was not identical to the Order of the Mass before the Council of Trent.

 

[ProVobis]

This seems to indicate those who would alter the rite “on-the-fly” so to speak, not to those who have the authority to receive and approve the rites. The OF is an approved form of the Mass of the Roman Rite, received and approved by Pope Paul VI. It is equally grave for a Priest to alter the words of the Canon in the OF to suit himself, as an example.

And if that Canon is as you say it is, then Pope Pius V is guilty for he altered the rites when he promulgated Quo Primum (which was chronologically after the Council of Trent).

I can’t say I follow your logic, jmj. This is not consistent with what Fr. Kramer is saying. The OF is not “received” (or handed down) in the way you say it is.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, and in the late 16th century, Pope Saint Pius V issued a New Order of the Mass, in as much as it was not identical to the Order of the Mass before the Council of Trent.

Where does it say that Pius V specifically issued a new order of Mass or a new rite? Give the Latin, please!

 

[malphono]

Where does it say that Pius V specifically issued a new order of Mass or a new rite?

It seems to me the flaw in the other poster’s argument is that at the time of Trent, there was no standard (some would say “universal”) form of Mass in the Latin Church. That is very clear when we look at the suppression of what I referred to earlier in this thread as the “upstart” variants (those that had been around less than 200 years), some of which were tainted by the Reformation. Trent was intent on standardizing the Ordo in order to (a) eliminate that taint and (b) to guard against future taint. (The ancient Rites that had been in continuous use for more than the 200 years were already – and clearly – considered to be “clean” and hence they were not suppressed.)

I suppose one could say that the Mass of Pius V was “new” but only insofar as it was a standardization, something which was somewhat absent in the Roman Church. In other words, what was “new” was the standardization. (As an aside, and strictly IMO, an argument could be made that the OF, with its multiple “options” and loosey-goosey rubrics has, in a way, reverted to something similar to the non-standard practices in vogue before Trent, but I digress and won’t go there in this thread.)

Sorry to butt in but I thought I’d toss in another :twocents:

 

[ProVobis]

It seems to me the flaw in the other poster’s argument is that at the time of Trent, there was no standard (some would say “universal”) form of Mass in the Latin Church. That is very clear when we look at the suppression of what I referred to earlier in this thread as the “upstart” variants (those that had been around less than 200 years), some of which were tainted by the Reformation. Trent was intent on standardizing the Ordo in order to (a) eliminate that taint and (b) to guard against future taint. (The ancient Rites that had been in continuous use for more than the 200 years were already – and clearly – considered to be “clean” and hence they were not suppressed.)

I suppose one could say that the Mass of Pius V was “new” but only insofar as it was a standardization, something which was somewhat absent in the Roman Church. In other words, what was “new” was the standardization. (As an aside, and strictly IMO, an argument could be made that the OF, with its multiple “options” and loosey-goosey rubrics has, in a way, reverted to something similar to the non-standard practices in vogue before Trent, but I digress and won’t go there in this thread.)

Sorry to butt in but I thought I’d toss in another :twocents:

Thanks for the clarification of this. I might have jumped to the wrong conclusions by presuming that this poster was using a mistranslation of Quo Primum.

It seems to me though that there is a vast difference between “changes” and “changes into a new rite” though. Your “clean slate” analogy, if that’s what you meant, seems to fit here.

 

[malphono]

Thanks for the clarification of this. I might have jumped to the wrong conclusions by presuming that this poster was using a mistranslation of Quo Primum.

It seems to me though that there is a vast difference between “changes” and “changes into a new rite” though. Your “clean slate” analogy, if that’s what you meant, seems to fit here.

If “clean slate” equals what I called “standardization,” yes. And I agree: there is a huge difference between “organic change” and a new rite. Even the Missal of Pius V represents “organic change” within the usage of Rome as it was “standardized” for use in the West (all the while keeping in mind the notable exceptions of those venerable and ancient Western Rites that survived Trent).

 

[ProVobis]

If “clean slate” equals what I called “standardization,” yes. And I agree: there is a huge difference between “organic change” and a new rite. Even the Missal of Pius V represents “organic change” within the usage of Rome as it was “standardized” for use in the West (all the while keeping in mind the notable exceptions of those venerable and ancient Western Rites that survived Trent).

Will this work better?

Clean slate + copy/paste + options other than propers + vernacular options = new rite

Received rite + organic growth (pastoral adjustments) = standardization

???

 

[MarkThompson]

Received rite + organic growth (pastoral adjustments) = standardization

I’m not sure precisely what you meant, but Quo Primum does not allow for any further organic development of the Roman Rite in the way it had occurred before 1570. The way it used to work is, for instance, musicians at one abbey or cathedral would get the idea that it would be cool to set the words of a non-Scriptural poem to the melismatic notes of the jubilus of an Alleluia. Other people would hear it, agree that it sounded sweet, then go home and set other poems to music. Soon enough you’d have the Sequence in your Mass – hundreds of them, in fact – all without the Vatican’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

After Quo Primum, of course, these musicians and abbots would be anathematized if they tried to do anything similar. There are, naturally, good things about standardizing and freezing the form of the rite, but it helps to identify the drawbacks and limitations as well.