Quo Primum

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmorgan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a different take on the matter:
In this book, first published in 1996 and augmented in 1999, Father Paul Kramer makes the case for the Tridentine Mass as not only not being forbidden, but in fact being the only Mass that is the “received and approved” rite of the Latin Rite it is not just approved by Church authority (i.e. Popes and Ecumenical Councils), but it was also received. That means, that it has been handed on (traditio) from the previous generations of the Church, going back not just as far as the Council of Trent, but going back to Pope Gregory the Great (590-604 AD), back to the Apostles. It is part of Catholic Tradition with a capital “T”. Catholic Tradition is also part of the Deposit of Faith.
Click to expand...
So when Pope St. Pius V, in his bull Quo Primum, commands that this Mass is to be said and that no one not even a Pope, much less a Cardinal, bishop or religious superior — can impose or command another rite of Mass to be said by any priest of the Latin Rite, he was not simply making a canonical law – that is, a law of the Church – which could be changed by a subsequent lawgiver – that is, another Pope. No, this decree of Quo Primum is making a dogmatic statement of the Catholic Faith – an infallible definition that cannot be changed by any subsequent Pope or any subsequent Pope together with a Council. That is why Canon XIII of Session VII of the Council of Trent solemnly defines, “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.”*
Click to expand...
What Pope St. Pius V was saying was that this rite (now known as the Tridentine Rite) – that is, the book that is attached to the bull Quo Primum – is the received and approved rite. This rite cannot be changed into an other and different one, as the Council of Trent has already dogmatically defined. And that is also why Quo Primum is binding on the Church for all time.
Click to expand...
What all this means in a few words is that the true, faithful, obedient Roman Catholic priest must offer the Tridentine Mass and it only– unless he is bi-ritual and can licitly (legally) offer the Byzantine liturgy as well. It also says that the true Catholic faithful of the Latin Rite must attend the Tridentine Mass and attend it only – unless they are visiting a Byzantine Rite Mass. And, it further means that those Catholics who have prided themselves as being faithful and obedient to legitimate authority by going to the New Mass have, in fact, been misled…
Click to expand...
alteringliturgy.com/
 
"Did Pope Paul VI have the authority to repeal the Apostolic Constitution, Quo Primum? Technically, he did not abrogate the Roman Missal, but he did replace it by the new revised Roman Missal and derogated the use of the older Missal. Pope Paul VI possessed the same papal authority as Pope St. Pius V. The principle is explicitly recognized by the Code of Canon Law. Canon 22 states that “if the later law is equally general or equally particular with the former one” - and both Quo Primum and Missale Romanum are equally Apostolic Constitutions dealing with exactly the same subject matter of the former law, then a later law repeals the former one, “if it contains an explicit statement to that effect, a repealing clause.” Pope Paul VI’s Missale Romanum did exactly that. It both mentions Quo Primum and says that what he is promulgating is promulgated “notwithstanding, as far as is necessary, Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances issued by our Predecessors and other prescriptions worthy of special mention and derogation.”
 
ProVobis,

That essay is an interpretation that is not supported by Canon law.

There is a frenzy to try an attach the “infallibility” chrism to every action of a pope but the fact is that it is only engaged in a very limited scope, regarding faith and morals, not disciplines of the Church of which the celebration of the liturgy is one. The implications of extrapolating this opinion to its logical end would be disturbing to say the least.

Do you include Pope St. Pius X in this same category for his revision of the breviary in 1910? The same prohibitions in Quo Primum exists in Quod a Vobix regarding “changes” to the approved texts. What about the changes that Pope Pius XII made? Were they equally egregious?

Lastly, if it were possible for one pope to infallibly decide and declare issues, beliefs, faiths and morals for all time, then why didn’t Trent just set in stone every crossed “t” and dotted “i” for the Catholic faith and be done with it? Why do we need a pope and a magesterium?
 
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” Archbishop Annnibale Bugnini

“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/
 
Ockham said:
"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/
Click to expand...
“*What did the Vatican II Church officially declare about the Mass in reference to Pauline Rite Mass?”
Code: 
"Hence, the Mass, the Lord's Supper, is at the same time and inseparably:

   1. A sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated
   2. a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said "do this in memory of me" (Lk. 22:19).
   3. a sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the People of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ. (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Eucharisticum Mysterium, #C1." *
I think I’ll take the word of Church authorities over Martin Luther anyday.
 
ProVobis said:
Here is a different take on the matter:

alteringliturgy.com/
Click to expand...
Thanks ProVobis. This is the confusing part for me.
We have one Pope( St. Pius V) establishing a set mass for the majority of the Church, in perpituity, and it remained **basically **the same for several hundred years. Then we have another council that decides that changes are needed and another Pope(Paul VI) that commissions a consilium to design and affect said changes. We get the Novus Ordo as the new OF and the Tridentine is now called the EF and relegated to a storage room somewhere to gather dust while the new mass gains acceptance.
If the Tridentine was legally replaced by the NO why did Pope John Paul and now Pope Benedict XVI offer encyclicals and a motu proprio to expand the EF? If the emphasis was that a new mass was needed and the old mass was abrogated, why even support the old? It does not make sense. And if the Tridentine form was not abrogated(which his Holiness Pope Benedict says it was not),why did we get a new mass to begin with?You do not replace a defective item with a new item and then continue to use the old one, unless the old one was not broke in the first place!
 
dmorgan said:
Thanks ProVobis. This is the confusing part for me.
We have one Pope( St. Pius V) establishing a set mass for the majority of the Church, in perpituity, and it remained **basically **the same for several hundred years.
Click to expand...
By your claim, if it be true, not one single iota could be changed in the Mass after Pope Saint Pius V’s Quo Primum. Either not a single change can be made or changes can be made. If not a single change can be made then numerous Popes, including Saint Pius X, have been in grave error for altering the Mass. If changes can be made, then there is no charge against Pope Paul VI for the changes he promulgated.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
 
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.
 
Ockham said:
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” Archbishop Annnibale Bugnini
Click to expand...
That’s a smear from Abp Lefebvre, sorry. I’ve looked into this before, and what Abp Bugnini wrote – in talking about removing “heretic” language from the Good Friday prayers – was:
E tuttavia l’amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell’unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo pietra che possa costituire pur lontamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici.
My Italian is not perfect (better at Latin and Spanish), but a faithful translation says,
And still the love of souls and the desire to facilitate the path of union for separated brothers, removing a stone that could constitute while far-away an obstacle or motive of discomfort, have led the Church also to these painful sacrifices.
That’s just not remotely close to:
We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.
What words are in this that isn’t in the original? – “strip,” “Catholic,” “prayers,” “liturgy,” “shadow,” “Protestants.” That’s not a translation; it’s a fabrication. This keeps rearing its head, though, I think because Lefebvre once paraphrased Bugnini using these words. So it gets presented as Bugnini’s admission that he wanted to turn the entire Catholic Mass and liturgy Protestant, when what he was saying was that, although a painful sacrifice to make, it’s a good idea not to rail, “Protestants are heretics!” in our Good Friday prayers if we want them to return to us. You can agree or disagree with that, but it just has nothing to do with the quote as it gets presented.
dmorgan said:
Thanks ProVobis. This is the confusing part for me.
We have one Pope( St. Pius V) establishing a set mass for the majority of the Church, in perpituity, and it remained **basically **the same for several hundred years. Then we have another council that decides that changes are needed and another Pope(Paul VI) that commissions a consilium to design and affect said changes. We get the Novus Ordo as the new OF and the Tridentine is now called the EF and relegated to a storage room somewhere to gather dust while the new mass gains acceptance.
If the Tridentine was legally replaced by the NO why did Pope John Paul and now Pope Benedict XVI offer encyclicals and a motu proprio to expand the EF? If the emphasis was that a new mass was needed and the old mass was abrogated, why even support the old? It does not make sense. And if the Tridentine form was not abrogated(which his Holiness Pope Benedict says it was not),why did we get a new mass to begin with?You do not replace a defective item with a new item and then continue to use the old one, unless the old one was not broke in the first place!
Click to expand...
The general agreement was that many things about the Tridentine Mass needed improvement. That’s not to say it was “defective” per se, but when you have a churchful of people who expect to show up, pray the Rosary in silence, collect Communion, and leave, that’s not the healthiest attitude to have about the Mass. Most people agreed that changes could be made that would help people actively participate in the Mass, rather than continue ignoring it in favor of private devotions. As an example, in the 1920s and 30s you got the “dialogue Mass,” which opened up to the people a number of the responses and gestures that previously had been made only by the servitors. Likewise, priests would repeat the readings in the vernacular, or even (gasp!) not bother reading them in Latin at all – and read them facing the congregation, not the altar.

All of these were changes that prefigured the Mass of Paul VI. My own personal view is that we would have been better off with one form of the rite, that looked maybe 60% like the TLM and 40% like the current Mass. The problem was, the Mass used to undergo regular organic development, often in fairly major respects. There were different uses in different cities. After the standardization of the Missal at Trent, though, this largely ceased, with changes only taking place when the Holy See bothered to get around to it. As a result, like a dammed-up river, there were a flood of changes waiting to be made, and like a burst dam results in a big mess, the opening of the dam in the wake of the Second Vatican Council caused a mess in the liturgy that we’re still in the process of cleaning up. It was high time for changes in the Mass; they’d just been bottled up for so long as a result of Trent and Quo Primum that things got out of hand. Not really a surprise, when you stop to think about it. Well, the pendulum swings back.
 
dmorgan said:
Thanks ProVobis. This is the confusing part for me.
We have one Pope( St. Pius V) establishing a set mass for the majority of the Church, in perpituity, and it remained **basically **the same for several hundred years. Then we have another council that decides that changes are needed and another Pope(Paul VI) that commissions a consilium to design and affect said changes. We get the Novus Ordo as the new OF and the Tridentine is now called the EF and relegated to a storage room somewhere to gather dust while the new mass gains acceptance.
If the Tridentine was legally replaced by the NO why did Pope John Paul and now Pope Benedict XVI offer encyclicals and a motu proprio to expand the EF? If the emphasis was that a new mass was needed and the old mass was abrogated, why even support the old? It does not make sense. And if the Tridentine form was not abrogated(which his Holiness Pope Benedict says it was not),why did we get a new mass to begin with?You do not replace a defective item with a new item and then continue to use the old one, unless the old one was not broke in the first place!
Click to expand...
I guess in the end it worked out better as we still have the old Latin Mass pretty much intact. It’s just too bad it took over 40 years to reinstate it into the Church’s mainstream, though.
 
MarkThompson said:
That’s a smear from Abp Lefebvre, sorry. I’ve looked into this before, and what Abp Bugnini wrote – in talking about removing “heretic” language from the Good Friday prayers -
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for this! I have seen that “quote” trotted out here time and time again without any reference to the original. It is truly shameful that people would go to such great lengths to smear Archbishop Bugnini. It certainly says something about the motives of those who continue to use it.
 
Timothysis said:
Thanks so much for this! I have seen that “quote” trotted out here time and time again without any reference to the original. It is truly shameful that people would go to such great lengths to smear Archbishop Bugnini. It certainly says something about the motives of those who continue to use it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m not saying Abp Bugnini was any great shakes, but at least the starting point in any discussion has to be not using fabricated quotes. And the fake version has been passed around so much that I’m sure most people who cut-and-paste it believe that it’s actually legitimate.
 
MarkThompson said:
The general agreement was that many things about the Tridentine Mass needed improvement. That’s not to say it was “defective” per se, but when you have a churchful of people who expect to show up, pray the Rosary in silence, collect Communion, and leave, that’s not the healthiest attitude to have about the Mass. Most people agreed that changes could be made that would help people actively participate in the Mass, rather than continue ignoring it in favor of private devotions. As an example, in the 1920s and 30s you got the “dialogue Mass,” which opened up to the people a number of the responses and gestures that previously had been made only by the servitors. Likewise, priests would repeat the readings in the vernacular, or even (gasp!) not bother reading them in Latin at all – and read them facing the congregation, not the altar.

All of these were changes that prefigured the Mass of Paul VI. My own personal view is that we would have been better off with one form of the rite, that looked maybe 60% like the TLM and 40% like the current Mass. The problem was, the Mass used to undergo regular organic development, often in fairly major respects. There were different uses in different cities. After the standardization of the Missal at Trent, though, this largely ceased, with changes only taking place when the Holy See bothered to get around to it. As a result, like a dammed-up river, there were a flood of changes waiting to be made, and like a burst dam results in a big mess, the opening of the dam in the wake of the Second Vatican Council caused a mess in the liturgy that we’re still in the process of cleaning up. It was high time for changes in the Mass; they’d just been bottled up for so long as a result of Trent and Quo Primum that things got out of hand. Not really a surprise, when you stop to think about it. Well, the pendulum swings back.
Click to expand...
I agree with your reasoning on this part, but wish to Almighty God that the Council had been much more specific about what was to be done. I still feel that we were robbed of over forty years of solid worship for an “ecuminical” ideal that was wrong in the first place.

“My Italian is not perfect (better at Latin and Spanish), but a faithful translation says,
And still the love of souls and the desire to facilitate the path of union for separated brothers, removing a stone that could constitute while far-away an obstacle or motive of discomfort, have led the Church also to these painful sacrifices.”
Pope Pius XI adressed this most eloquently here:
fisheaters.com/mortaliumanimos.html

Thanks for all of the replies.
 
dmorgan said:
I agree with your reasoning on this part, but wish to Almighty God that the Council had been much more specific about what was to be done. I still feel that we were robbed of over forty years of solid worship for an “ecuminical” ideal that was wrong in the first place.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think a ton of problems could have been avoided if the Council had been more specific, if the drafting of the Novus Ordo Missae had been slower and more deliberate, and if it had been introduced more gradually.

I’m not sure it’s right to chalk issues up to an “ecumenical ideal,” though. The undeniable reality is that before the Council many people were completely disengaged from the Mass, didn’t understand it, and didn’t actively participate according to their roles. I think the idea was to recapture some of the vibrancy and immediacy of the earlier days of the Church. The plan wasn’t to make the Mass “less Catholic,” unless “Catholic” necessarily means “ossified, mostly silent, highly rubricated, and in Latin,” which fortunately it doesn’t. It can seem that way, because for a long time the liturgy was ossified, mostly silent, highly rubricated, and in Latin.

You know, it’s really quite fascinating to read the stories from those days. For a lot of people it was a time of great excitement, a really thrilling moment to be in the Church. It’s also thrilling to get a big bag of candy. And some candy is just fine in your regular diet. Some guitars are just fine at Mass – on a rural retreat, for instance. But just like it’s easy to pig out on candy, it was easy to “pig out” on changes to the Mass. What should have been done slowly and in moderation was done too fast and too much.

Yet who’s to blame? Some blame can be laid at the feet of the folks who brought guitars and so on into the Masses. Yet, no doubt with a few exceptions, these were excited and loyal Catholics who felt themselves filled with the Holy Spirit. Some blame can be placed on Pius V as well – if Quo Primum had allowed a more natural organic development of the liturgy, we probably wouldn’t have seen a need for a new order of the Mass in the first place. I’m sure blame is owing to Paul VI, secular culture and the sexual revolution, and all the other usual suspects as well.

And at the same time as I criticize “pigging out” on the new Mass, I know that the old Mass isn’t a viable way forward either, in its ossified form. You’ve gotta grow, change, and renew as the centuries go by. Liturgy that made sense for persecuted ex-slaves in the catacombs of Rome won’t quite make sense for the illiterate peasants who were the backbone of Baroque society, and their liturgy won’t precisely be apt for a bunch of educated, engaged democratic citizens today. There’s nothing to be ashamed of in that! Every time the liturgy changes, that’s not saying that the old liturgy or the old society sucked, it’s recognizing that society changes and that the liturgy is how changing society, via the Church, connects with the eternal and unchanging mysteries of God.
 
Timothysis said:
Thanks so much for this! I have seen that “quote” trotted out here time and time again without any reference to the original. It is truly shameful that people would go to such great lengths to smear Archbishop Bugnini. It certainly says something about the motives of those who continue to use it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because you’ve never smeared an archbishop before…:whistle:

Eeeeeeevil trads aren’t the only ones to perpetuate unsubstantiated claims, tim…You, of all people, should realize this.
 
dmorgan said:
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. "
Click to expand...
Obviously not, as the Missal of Paul VI superseded the Missal of Pius V, as approved and taught by the Magisterium.
 
MarkThompson said:
L’Osservatore Romano, March 7, 1965.
Click to expand...
A link is always appreciated.

If you dispute the validity of that quote I’ll remove it for now as it’s not essential to my argument. The point is the Novus Ordo is a dramatic change from the TLM. This change is contrary to many papal documents, the papal oath, centuries of teaching and perhaps the core of Catholicism itself.

Do you dispute the other quotes as well? Then there’s the whole Freemason rumour but I’m sure we can get into that another time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top