Quo Primum

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmorgan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarkThompson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah the “for instance” is true, but that’s really not the point here, is it?
 
malphono said:
Yeah the “for instance” is true, but that’s really not the point here, is it?
Click to expand...
Uh . . . it’s a point. Two related points, really: the (TL) Mass has not undergone organic development since 1570; and that ossification over four centuries is one of the major factors in explaining the rapidity and severity of change that burst forth in the wake of the Second Vatican Council when the bottle was uncorked.
 
malphono said:
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.
Click to expand...
So Trent was to the Mass what Nicea was to the Gospels.
 
MarkThompson said:
and that ossification over four centuries is one of the major factors in explaining the rapidity and severity of change that burst forth in the wake of the Second Vatican Council when the bottle was uncorked.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t it more like who was allowed to shake the bottle? 🙂
 
Ockham said:
An entirely different thing to change the liturgy from the TLM to the NO.
Click to expand...
And the Church did just that. Just like the Church, following (not at) the Council of Trent, reformed and changed the Mass. No difference. You disagree with the Church, is that what you’re saying?
 
ProVobis said:
Session VII, Canon XIII of Trent:
Click to expand...
The Missal of Pius V promulgated after Trent was modified numerous times, the last of which was by John XXIII, before Vatican II, by inserting St. Joseph into the Canon.
 
The TLM did change slowly, organically, whereas the NO was a dramatic change in effect a new form of liturgy.
 
diggerdomer said:
And the Church did just that. Just like the Church, following (not at) the Council of Trent, reformed and changed the Mass. No difference. You disagree with the Church, is that what you’re saying?
Click to expand...
That has always been a point of contention in the “they didn’t have the authority to do it” argument with me. Pope Paul’s missal was issued with the same papal authority as the Tridentine missal. Why is there an argument about legitimacy?
 
diggerdomer said:
The Missal of Pius V promulgated after Trent was modified numerous times, the last of which was by John XXIII, before Vatican II, by inserting St. Joseph into the Canon.
Click to expand...
I think Pope Benedict was the last to modify the EF Mass.
 
Ockham said:
The TLM did change slowly, organically, whereas the NO was a dramatic change in effect a new form of liturgy.
Click to expand...
If you mean before 1570, you’re right that the Mass did change organically, although often the changes were anything but slow. Quo Primum, however, put the brakes on organic change. When change has to happen from the Vatican by papal directive, it’s not “organic” in any legitimate sense.
 
MarkThompson said:
If you mean before 1570, you’re right that the Mass did change organically, although often the changes were anything but slow. Quo Primum, however, put the brakes on organic change. When change has to happen from the Vatican by papal directive, it’s not “organic” in any legitimate sense.
Click to expand...
That all depends. Prior to that time, any “changes” came from somewhere, and it wasn’t at the parish level. In the true non-Roman Rites (Ambrosian, Sarum, Dominican, etc) the liturgy was under the direction of the Primate or Superior General (and still is for those that survive). It’s not as if every priest was allowed to have his own variation. And even those Tracts and Sequences mentioned in the earlier “for instance” weren’t just added willy-nilly.

The above was true even in the suppressed “upstart” usages that began to spring up like weeds (particularly in Germany). At the risk of being redundant, what Quo Primum/Trent did was “standardize” things. And, to say that subsequent changes to the Missal of Pius V (albeit that they were minor) were not “organic” is really not quite accurate (and it seems that PP Benedict XVI has had quite a few things to say on that). The term “organic” is not restricted to “grass roots” or “upstart” change.
 
Ockham said:
The TLM did change slowly, organically, whereas the NO was a dramatic change in effect a new form of liturgy.
Click to expand...
It was a dramatic changed compared to what previously was celebrated, in the immiediate (e.g. 5 years) context, yes. However, it was entirely coherent with the whole of the Catholic tradition, as it recovered many ancient Traditional elements that had been left out of the Mass. Like the Prayer of the Faithful (lamentably removed by Pope Gregory the Great ca. 600 A.D.). It was only a new form to those who were unaware of the entire liturgical history and Tradition of the Catholic Church.
 
Timothysis said:
That has always been a point of contention in the “they didn’t have the authority to do it” argument with me. Pope Paul’s missal was issued with the same papal authority as the Tridentine missal. Why is there an argument about legitimacy?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. I agree with you. Those who agree with the Pope (Vatican) approving and dramatically changing Catholic liturgy following the Council of Trent seem to have a real problem with the same authority doing the same thing following the Vatican II Council.
 
diggerdomer said:
I have no idea. I agree with you. Those who agree with the Pope (Vatican) approving and dramatically changing Catholic liturgy following the Council of Trent seem to have a real problem with the same authority doing the same thing following the Vatican II Council.
Click to expand...
I suspect that it is because it doesn’t fit their agenda.
 
diggerdomer said:
He didn’t really modify it, he “rejuvenated” it, inexplicably to many liturgical scholars.
Click to expand...
I believe that Pope Benedict made some changes to the prayers of Holy Week regarding the Jews.
 
ByzCath said:
I believe that Pope Benedict made some changes to the prayers of Holy Week regarding the Jews.
Click to expand...
Ah, good point. After he “rejuvenated” the so-called EF, yes, due to the legitimate outcry certain prayers were revised. But originally, he authorized the Rite (or, “form”) without those changes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top