Quo Primum

[dmorgan]

Queston for the more knowledgable, is Quo Primum from Pope St. Pius V still valid? If not, what bull or decree rescinded it. Thank you.

"Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been
delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other
churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian
world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this
Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches
and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and
parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men
(including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or
ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and
customs of the Roman Church; to apply, moreover, even if the said
churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See,
by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have
their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever,
saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted
over 200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See’s institution and
confirmation of the Church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar
custom followed continuously for a period of not less than 200 years; in which
cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid.
Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable
to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to its rite,
subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter,
all else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other churches aforesaid are
hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely
rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in
perpetuity. We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be
added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing
whatsoever altered therein.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other
persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy
Roman Church or possessed of any other rank or preeminence, and We order them by
virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to
the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to
discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals,
howsoever ancient, which they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume
in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than
those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents 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, judgment or censure, and may be
freely and lawfully used.

Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests,
or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged
to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. 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 for ever remain valid and have the force of law,
notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal
councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid, established
by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than
200 years. "

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

Still Valid…there are people out there today who ignores it and claims it isn’t though…there are those who ignore all the other councils/bulls/encyclicals and feel that Vatican II is THE ONLY council that ever took place in the Church

 

[JMJ_coder]

You are aware that even before the Missal of Paul VI, the Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V had been modified many times, for example on Sept. 2, 1634 with the promulgation of a revised Missal under Pope Urban VIII with the Bull “Si quid est”.

 

[dmorgan]

You are aware that even before the Missal of Paul VI, the Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V had been modified many times, for example on Sept. 2, 1634 with the promulgation of a revised Missal under Pope Urban VIII with the Bull “Si quid est”.

Yes:
“In view of this consideration, following in the footsteps of the Supreme Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, Pius V and Clement VIII, who undertook to review and restore most diligently the rite and prayers pertaining to the celebration of this sacred Mystery, We have ordered that these be again examined and that if by chance anything, as often happens, has been corrupted in the course of time, it shall be restored to its former standard.”

“The rubrics which had been allowed to gradually degenerate from the old usage and rite, have been restored to their former pattern; those which did not seem to be easily intelligible to the readers, have been more clearly stated; and moreover, having compared the pertinent texts with the Vulgate edition of Holy Writ, the differences which had crept into the Missal have been emended according to this standard and norm.”

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/403

But this was a return to the Missal of Pope St. Pius V with minor enhancement, not a re-write. I still ask is Quo Primum in affect?

 

[Rogerteder]

I would say it is still valid. Remember Paul VI did not create a New Mass. The Novus Ordo is the “New Order of THE Mass.” It isnt a new mass. It is still the Roman Rite. As was said earlier Pius V’s missal has/had been modified many times before Paul VI issued the “New Mass.” The Roman rite is still the Mass of “all time.” How the Mass is said (as far as rubrics etc.) will certainly adapt and change with time…

when you ask is Quo Primum still in affect? What do you mean? Do you mean that the Roman rite is still the “main” rite in the Church? The answer would be yes.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The form of the Mass is a matter of discipline not faith and morals.

No pope may bind a future pope on matters of discipline.

Like clock work, this topic keeps popping up on this forum. Sometimes I wish people would do a search before posting.

 

[Rogerteder]

The form of the Mass is a matter of discipline not faith and morals.

No pope may bind a future pope on matters of discipline.

Like clock work, this topic keeps popping up on this forum. Sometimes I wish people would do a search before posting.

He dist ask whether the Pope could change the Mass. He asked whether Pius V’s “letter” was still valid.

 

[ncjohn]

He dist ask whether the Pope could change the Mass. He asked whether Pius V’s “letter” was still valid.

But the implication is that to be “valid” means that the Mass can never be changed. ByzCath’s answer is exactly correct in that no Pope can bind any future Pope in matters of discipline and by extension no document can bind discipline in perpetuity.

So if by “valid” the question is whether the Church is only allowed to have the Missal exactly as established by Quo Primum, the answer is “no”.

Peace,

 

[Rogerteder]

But the implication is that to be “valid” means that the Mass can never be changed. ByzCath’s answer is exactly correct in that no Pope can bind any future Pope in matters of discipline and by extension no document can bind discipline in perpetuity.

So if by “valid” the question is whether the Church is only allowed to have the Missal exactly as established by Quo Primum, the answer is “no”.

Peace,

Who’s “implication?” I read what the orginal poster actually wrote. I dont “read into” it or assume things. he never asked if the Pope could change or modify the Mass. Maybe he meant “this” maybe he meant"that". I read what he actually asked not what he might have meant.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Yes:
“In view of this consideration, following in the footsteps of the Supreme Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, Pius V and Clement VIII, who undertook to review and restore most diligently the rite and prayers pertaining to the celebration of this sacred Mystery, We have ordered that these be again examined and that if by chance anything, as often happens, has been corrupted in the course of time, it shall be restored to its former standard.”

“The rubrics which had been allowed to gradually degenerate from the old usage and rite, have been restored to their former pattern; those which did not seem to be easily intelligible to the readers, have been more clearly stated; and moreover, having compared the pertinent texts with the Vulgate edition of Holy Writ, the differences which had crept into the Missal have been emended according to this standard and norm.”

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/403

But this was a return to the Missal of Pope St. Pius V with minor enhancement, not a re-write. I still ask is Quo Primum in affect?

Are you suggesting that in those 60 years the Mass had become so corrupted that it needed revising back to the Missal of Pius V. Doesn’t that contradict the usual line that the Mass remained perfectly intact since the time of Pius V (it didn’t even make it a century, then).

No, Pope Urban VIII continued the work of Pope Saint Pius V in restoring the Liturgy from additions during the late Middle Ages.

 

[JMJ_coder]

But the implication is that to be “valid” means that the Mass can never be changed. ByzCath’s answer is exactly correct in that no Pope can bind any future Pope in matters of discipline and by extension no document can bind discipline in perpetuity.

So if by “valid” the question is whether the Church is only allowed to have the Missal exactly as established by Quo Primum, the answer is “no”.

Peace,

Right, when the Pope orders this held in perpetuity, he means that only someone with equal or higher authority than the Pope may alter this (i.e., a Bishop couldn’t willy-nilly make changes in the Mass by his own authority).

Both the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI (in addition to the many Popes following Saint Pius V who made revisions to the Missal) had the proper authority to make said alterations.

 

[MarkThompson]

The above answers seem right: it’s still “valid” except inasmuch as it’s been properly repealed or superseded. We must remember that Quo Primum has never been understood as preventing a pope or an ecumenical council from changing the Mass, and indeed we see that it the missal was almost constantly revised to include new feasts and their respective propers and prayers, to add stuff like the sequence Stabat Mater, which had been stripped out at Trent and was restored in 1727 by Pope Benedict XIII, and so on. Pius V, for instance, altered the Mass by adding the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary in 1571, just one year after he issued Quo Primum.

 

[dmorgan]

The form of the Mass is a matter of discipline not faith and morals.

No pope may bind a future pope on matters of discipline.

Like clock work, this topic keeps popping up on this forum. Sometimes I wish people would do a search before posting.

Sorry to waist your time, please feel free to disregard. Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi

I guess what I am asking is this: From Pope St. Pius V to the time of Vatican II the order of the Mass was for the most part unaltered, in as much as the general Rubrics. I have read the varous changes that were decreed by subsequent Popes and I cannot find any major deviations from what St. Pius V decreed until after V-II. I also realize that the actual documents from V-II did not specify the changes that were to come as a result of the Consilium as appointed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. So why did we get the changes from the Consilium and how do we rectify these changes with Quo Primum? It is painfully obvious to even an casual observer that when put side by side, the order of the Mass in the Tridentine form is very different than the order of the Novus Ordo form. Was this a break from Quo Primum? I see many poster here defend both forms as being equal, but outside of the definitions established by Pope St. Pius V concerning holy orders and those missals more than 200 years old, how do we as lay faithful reconcile these changes? I am not looking for an argument! I am looking for Church law concerning the changes from what we had to what we have now in light of this:

“Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests,
or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged
to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. 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 for ever remain valid and have the force of law”

Please educate my ignorance on this matter, for if the decree by Pope St. Pius V was Ex Cathedra and binding, and not found to be in error, how was the Mass completely altered?

 

[MarkThompson]

Sorry to waist your time, please feel free to disregard. Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi

I guess what I am asking is this: From Pope St. Pius V to the time of Vatican II the order of the Mass was for the most part unaltered, in as much as the general Rubrics. I have read the varous changes that were decreed by subsequent Popes and I cannot find any major deviations from what St. Pius V decreed until after V-II. I also realize that the actual documents from V-II did not specify the changes that were to come as a result of the Consilium as appointed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. So why did we get the changes from the Consilium and how do we rectify these changes with Quo Primum? It is painfully obvious to even an casual observer that when put side by side, the order of the Mass in the Tridentine form is very different than the order of the Novus Ordo form. Was this a break from Quo Primum? I see many poster here defend both forms as being equal, but outside of the definitions established by Pope St. Pius V concerning holy orders and those missals more than 200 years old, how do we as lay faithful reconcile these changes? I am not looking for an argument! I am looking for Church law concerning the changes from what we had to what we have now in light of this:

“Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests,
or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged
to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. 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 for ever remain valid and have the force of law”

Please educate my ignorance on this matter, for if the decree by Pope St. Pius V was Ex Cathedra and binding, and not found to be in error, how was the Mass completely altered?

The thought process often seems to go like this: Quo Primum said absolutely no changes ever to the Mass on pain of incurring the wrath of God. Sure, there were constant smallish changes here and there, no one denies that; but the even though the letter of Quo Primum said no changes of any sort, we all know that the “spirit of Quo Primum” means that minor, necessary changes and adjustments are okay, but big changes aren’t.

Hopefully you can now see the gaping flaw in that way of thinking.

 

[malphono]

Please educate my ignorance on this matter, for if the decree by Pope St. Pius V was Ex Cathedra and binding, and not found to be in error, how was the Mass completely altered?

I believe that Quo Primum was a Bull, which means it wasn’t really ex cathedra (in the sense of being “infallible”) in the first place. But never mind that.

The fact is that the Mass in the Roman Rite wasn’t exactly “changed” in 1969. Rather, a “new order” of Mass (aka Novus Ordo) was implemented. The “old order” of Mass was not abrogated, nor, following the thought pattern of PP Benedict XVI, could it have been, since what was considered holy and efficacious for centuries cannot be declared otherwise. To me, at least, this makes perfect sense.

So, we have two forms of the Roman Rite: the EF (which reflects organic development) and the OF.

 

[dmorgan]

I believe that Quo Primum was a Bull, which means it wasn’t really ex cathedra (in the sense of being “infallible”) in the first place. But never mind that.

The fact is that the Mass in the Roman Rite wasn’t exactly “changed” in 1969. Rather, a “new order” of Mass (aka Novus Ordo) was implemented. The “old order” of Mass was not abrogated, nor, following the thought pattern of PP Benedict XVI, could it have been, since what was considered holy and efficacious for centuries cannot be declared otherwise. To me, at least, this makes perfect sense.

So, we have two forms of the Roman Rite: the EF (which reflects organic development) and the OF.

OK, so the Tridentine was not changed, but a new form was endorsed and promulgated to be the new OF, thereby circumventing Quo Primum and all that went before it. Got it, I think.

 

[MarkThompson]

OK, so the Tridentine was not changed, but a new form was endorsed and promulgated to be the new OF, thereby circumventing Quo Primum and all that went before it. Got it, I think.

I don’t think Malphono is quite right. It’s true, I suppose, that “what has been considered holy and efficacious” can’t be suddenly declared not to be, but priests can be forbidden from doing it on the basis of holy obedience. That’s what happened to many local rites and uses at Trent: unless they were more than two centuries old, they were abrogated. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t holy or perfectly nice ways of celebrating the Mass, just that the people in charge (i.e., St. Pius V) decided that those rites were to be forbidden and replaced with the newly-standardized Roman Rite.

The Tridentine Rite has been changed many, many times, by everyone from Pius V to Bl. John XXIII, who added the name of St. Joseph to the Roman Canon. It’s true that what was promulgated in 1970 was a new form of the Roman Rite, to stand alongside the Tridentine form as amended. However, this needn’t have been the case; the Tridentine Mass itself could have been massively changed in exactly the same way it had regularly been changed in small ways.

So there’s nothing about “circumventing Quo Primum” here. It doesn’t need to be circumvented – it doesn’t bind popes and ecumenical councils of the Church. It didn’t bind Pius V when he changed the Mass a year after Quo Primum, it didn’t bind Benedict XIII or John XXIII when they changed the Mass, and it would not have bound Paul VI.

The issues that seem to be giving you a hard time are ones of degree, not kind. Changes to the Mass are changes to the Mass. Quo Primum does not say, the Mass is sacrosanct and inviolable, except that small changes are okay. It says, the Mass is sacrosanct and inviolable, and no change or any sort is ever permitted to be made by anyone. So if someone says, “I refuse to celebrate the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary; Pius V violated Quo Primum when he added it to the missal,” what’s the answer? You have three possibilities: (1) okay, technically you’re right, the feast can’t be part of the calendar, (2) no, Quo Primum doesn’t apply to that kind of change, or (3) no, Pius V was entitled to change the missal in that respect notwithstanding Quo Primum.

(1) is for crazy people; (2) doesn’t work because Quo Primum says no changes of any kind, it doesn’t say you can add feasts, change prayers, and so on, just don’t do too much of it. So the correct response has to be (3). But (3) implies what I and others have said – that Quo Primum simply does not bind the Pope. It’s not binding in small changes, and it’s not binding in big changes. A pope can make minor changes to the missal, and a pope can make major changes to the missal.

 

[PacoG]

I seem to remember that Pope St. Pius X was similarly criticized when he revised the breviary in 1911 and ABROGATED Pope St. Pius V’s Apostolic Constitution Quod a nobis, 9 July 1568, which had promulgated the Breviary of Pius V. Pius X went further and abolished St. Pius V’s breviary.

From what I understand, Quod a nobis uses similar if not the exact language used in Quo Primum.

And pardon my sarcasm, but isn’t Pope St. Pius X the darling of traditionalists? If Paul VI couldn’t abrogate Quo Primum, then St. Pius X couldn’t abrogate Quod a nobis. What is true for the goose, is true for the gander.

I think it all lies in leadership styles…St. Pius X was not in the business in making everyone happy. He was not afraid to make decisions. He was a true pastor and father. He revised the breviary, abrogated Quod a nobis and used explicitly, unambiguous language in Divino afflatu which implemented his new Breviary.

On the other hand, Paul VI was timid and cowardly. He didn’t go out and openly abrogate Quo Primum because he was afraid of angering people. It was another of his Hamletesque non-decisions. The Apostolic Constitution implementing the OF uses ambiguous language. It doesn’t even have a title. It was exactly what our Lord meant when he said Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one." His inability to make his “Yes” mean “Yes,” created the confusion and acrimony that resounds 40 years later. IMHO: I hope that Paul VI’s cause for sainthood goes nowhere. He is by no means an example of heroic virtue.

 

[malphono]

I don’t think Malphono is quite right. It’s true, I suppose, that “what has been considered holy and efficacious” can’t be suddenly declared not to be, but priests can be forbidden from doing it on the basis of holy obedience. That’s what happened to many local rites and uses at Trent: unless they were more than two centuries old, they were abrogated. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t holy or perfectly nice ways of celebrating the Mass, just that the people in charge (i.e., St. Pius V) decided that those rites were to be forbidden and replaced with the newly-standardized Roman Rite.

That’s not exactly what happened at Trent regarding the suppression of certain usages. What were suppressed were (a) older usages that had** fallen out of continuous use** and (b) a number of variant usages that had cropped-up in various places, all within the scope of the “200 year rule” established at the time. The idea is one of continuity. In my previous post I said “what was considered holy and efficacious for centuries cannot be declared otherwise” for just that reason.

The word “suppressed” in regard to those usages that had fallen out of use can be a bit confusing. Yes, they were technically suppressed, but precisely because the continuity had been broken (in most cases voluntarily or at least semi-voluntarily). The suppression was a matter of discipline insofar as it said those usages were not to be revived, at least not on the local level. (As an aside, it’s interesting that there seems to be some interest these days in reviving the Sarum Rite (suppressed because it was not in continuous use for 200 years before Trent) for use in the forthcoming Anglican Ordinatiates.)

OTOH, the fate of the local variants was indeed a suppression. Those were “upstarts” that (a) had not stood the test of time, and (b) in some cases lacked approbation in the first place. One must remember that the suppression was in the wake of the Reformation and some of those “upstart” local variants seem to have been tainted by it.

 

[dmorgan]

I don’t think Malphono is quite right. It’s true, I suppose, that “what has been considered holy and efficacious” can’t be suddenly declared not to be, but priests can be forbidden from doing it on the basis of holy obedience. That’s what happened to many local rites and uses at Trent: unless they were more than two centuries old, they were abrogated. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t holy or perfectly nice ways of celebrating the Mass, just that the people in charge (i.e., St. Pius V) decided that those rites were to be forbidden and replaced with the newly-standardized Roman Rite.

The Tridentine Rite has been changed many, many times, by everyone from Pius V to Bl. John XXIII, who added the name of St. Joseph to the Roman Canon. It’s true that what was promulgated in 1970 was a new form of the Roman Rite, to stand alongside the Tridentine form as amended. However, this needn’t have been the case; the Tridentine Mass itself could have been massively changed in exactly the same way it had regularly been changed in small ways.

So there’s nothing about “circumventing Quo Primum” here. It doesn’t need to be circumvented – it doesn’t bind popes and ecumenical councils of the Church. It didn’t bind Pius V when he changed the Mass a year after Quo Primum, it didn’t bind Benedict XIII or John XXIII when they changed the Mass, and it would not have bound Paul VI.

The issues that seem to be giving you a hard time are ones of degree, not kind. Changes to the Mass are changes to the Mass. Quo Primum does not say, the Mass is sacrosanct and inviolable, except that small changes are okay. It says, the Mass is sacrosanct and inviolable, and no change or any sort is ever permitted to be made by anyone. So if someone says, “I refuse to celebrate the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary; Pius V violated Quo Primum when he added it to the missal,” what’s the answer? You have three possibilities: (1) okay, technically you’re right, the feast can’t be part of the calendar, (2) no, Quo Primum doesn’t apply to that kind of change, or (3) no, Pius V was entitled to change the missal in that respect notwithstanding Quo Primum.

(1) is for crazy people; (2) doesn’t work because Quo Primum says no changes of any kind, it doesn’t say you can add feasts, change prayers, and so on, just don’t do too much of it. So the correct response has to be (3). But (3) implies what I and others have said – that Quo Primum simply does not bind the Pope. It’s not binding in small changes, and it’s not binding in big changes. A pope can make minor changes to the missal, and a pope can make major changes to the missal.

Thanks Mark for the explanation. If I am clear on this, then no Pope or Ecumenical council is bound by tradition or previous Popes or councils on issues that are not Dogma in the strict sense?