Quo Primum

[Timothysis]

Time for my unsolicited :twocents:

The so-called more efficacious/less efficacious" argument really doesn’t much exist any longer, except, perhaps, in the minds of some diehards. At least not objectively. What does exist, however, is the subjective argument that some people prefer the EF since they find it more spiritually fulfilling. The subjective is just that: people are entitled to their own preference. Oh sure, I suppose some folks (not the diehards) may express that preference using the word “efficacious” (which is incorrect) but there is a big difference between an error in terms and an error in thought.

True, but I can only go by the written word here, not what by is “thought” by some. I have seen too many times, though, people trying to write objectively that one is more efficacious than the other. I have never criticized one’s preference for the EF, only the attempt by some to label the OF as “protestant” or “protestantized,” or the clearly derogatory attempts to denigrate the Pauline Missal. I do agree with you; the attempt to declare that one is more “objectively” efficacious than the other is like trying to declare that saltwater is more wet than fresh!

 

[MarkThompson]

Very interesting, indeed. Kinda blows a hole in the whole “more efficacious/less efficacious” argument, doesn’t it?!?!?

With all due respect, not really; the statement can just as easily be understood as applying to the Mass in the form it had at the time, and properly celebrated.

 

[Ockham]

Right, so 400 years after Luther the Lutheran church finally decided to "alter their services to match" the Pauline Missal because “Luther advocated CITH, table rather than altar, and the venacular,” all of which are disciplines of the Church and have nothing to do with the missal. Apparently, the minor issues of Christ truly present in the Eucharist and the Mass as a sacrifice, things that Lutherans don’t accept, were simply glanced over as unimportant, huh???I]

As you worship so you believe. If you wish to worship in a form similar to protestants then go ahead. I choose the option proven by history to be authentically Catholic and not one created recently by a spurious author with dubious intentions.

Once upon a time our clergy led us to worship a golden calf. Judge yourselves accordingly.

 

[Timothysis]

As you worship so you believe. If you wish to worship in a form similar to protestants then go ahead. I choose the option proven by history to be authentically Catholic and not one created recently by a spurious author with dubious intentions.

Once upon a time our clergy led us to worship a golden calf. Judge yourselves accordingly.

I worship in the same form as the Holy Father of the Catholic Church; do you consider him to "worship in a form similar to protestants?"

If you cannot see/grasp/understand the “authentically Catholic” elements in the Ordinary Form of the Mass then the problem lies with you and your intellect, not the approved form of the liturgy for the Church. You tell us to “Judge yourselves accordingly,” yet you place yourself in the position to judge the pope, the bishops, priests and laity of the entire Church. Why don’t you remove the golden calf from your own eye before you accuse others of worshiping the same…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As you worship so you believe. If you wish to worship in a form similar to protestants then go ahead. I choose the option proven by history to be authentically Catholic and not one created recently by a spurious author with dubious intentions.

Once upon a time our clergy led us to worship a golden calf. Judge yourselves accordingly.

All I have to say to this is what the Council of Trent said; that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

 

[diggerdomer]

If the Catholic Church of two thousand years isn’t right for some people then the honourable thing to do is leave rather than change it to their agenda.

Provocative challenge. How do you remain in the Church when you obviously have so many fundamental issues that She teaches and authorizes that you disagree with?

 

[diggerdomer]

That evolved organically unlike Bugnini’s ‘reform’. Nice try.

Bugnini did not reform any Catholic liturgy. Sorry. Only the Magisterium has authority over the Liturgy. Bugnini was and is not the Magisterium. If you disagree with Bugnini, so be it. If you disagree with the Magisterium, then why bother being Catholic?

 

[diggerdomer]

My understanding is Luther had several issues with the OF of the day so I doubt his descendents would alter their services to match. The Novus Ordo gave them something along their own misguided beliefs.

As the Catholic Church is the only way into heaven I prefer to support the Mass of Ages rather than neo-protestantism. Luther advocated CITH, table rather than altar, and the venacular.

Based on the frequency of changes, options and abuse I don’t think “integrity” should be mentioned in the same sentence as the Pauline Missal.

If you really believe the Catholic Church is the only way into heaven, why would you possibly reject what the Catholic Church teaches? This seems contradictory, at the very least.

 

[diggerdomer]

I choose the option proven by history to be authentically Catholic .

With all due respect, and curiosity, it seems you don’t. You don’t accept current authentic Catholic teaching regarding liturgy, do you?

 

[diggerdomer]

My understanding is Luther had several issues with the OF of the day.

What does this mean?

What would Luther or any Catholic at the time have understood by the “OF of the day”? Can you clarify? Thanks.

 

[Timothysis]

With all due respect, not really; the statement can just as easily be understood as applying to the Mass in the form it had at the time, and properly celebrated.

I meant that it was interesting that some here try to use the statements of Trent and Quo Primum to suggest that the latin Mass is the only “true” Mass of the latin Church, with the inference being that Mass according to the Pauline Missal is somehow less than that of the Tridentine Missal. The canon quoted by ByzCath from Trent, which can be applied to the previous justification, can also be used to guard against the denigrations that we see committed against the current OF, such as calling that liturgy "neo-protestantism" or "protestant in nature." In effect, they are bitten by the proverbial hand that feeds them.

 

[ProVobis]

the Council of Trent said; that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

But how can that apply to the Novus Ordo when Trent also anathematized those who changed existing rites into new ones?

 

[Ockham]

But how can that apply to the Novus Ordo when Trent also anathematized those who changed existing rites into new ones?

I’m wondering the same thing.

 

[Ockham]

I worship in the same form as the Holy Father of the Catholic Church; do you consider him to "worship in a form similar to protestants?"

If you cannot see/grasp/understand the “authentically Catholic” elements in the Ordinary Form of the Mass then the problem lies with you and your intellect, not the approved form of the liturgy for the Church. You tell us to “Judge yourselves accordingly,” yet you place yourself in the position to judge the pope, the bishops, priests and laity of the entire Church. Why don’t you remove the golden calf from your own eye before you accuse others of worshiping the same…

If you cannot see/grasp/understand that the EF has more ‘authentically Catholic elements’ then there is a problem with your intellect.

Removing the golden calf from one’s eye? That’s a clever mixed metaphor that I may borrow sometime.

One of the motives behind the Novus Ordo was to reach out to the Protestants and make it easier for their return. How’s that working out? Pope Benedict XVI didn’t take the chains off the TLM for no good reason. A reform of the reform is needed to repair the damage done by the modernists these past forty years. We won’t get out of this desert overnight.

 

[dmorgan]

When Pope St. Pius X issued Divino Afflatu to replace Quod a Nobis from Pope St’ Pius V he wrote:
“Therefore, by the authority of these letters, we first of all abolish the order of the psaltery as it is at present in the Roman breviary, and we absolutely forbid the use of it after the 1st day of January of the year 1913. From that day in all the churches of secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious, by all and several who by office or custom recite the canonical hours according to the Roman breviary issued by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII, we order the religious observance of the new arrangement of the psaltery in the form in which we have approved it and decreed its publication by the Vatican printing press. At the same time we proclaim the penalties prescribed in law against all who fail in their office of reciting the canonical hours everyday; all such are to know that they will not be satisfying this grave duty unless they use this our disposition of the psaltery.”

I can find no such language in Pope Paul VI Misale Romanum that abrogates Quo Primum. the argument that Misale Romanum overides Quo Primum does not stand. Read the Documents:
fisheaters.com/quoprimum.html (Quo Primum)

sanctaliturgia.blogspot.com/2005/11/divino-afflatu-english.html (Divina Afflantu)

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html (Misale Romanum)

Here is the pertinent paragraph from Misale Romanum:
"In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, “for legitimate variations and adaptations,”(15) we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. Thus, in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation."

Does the last paragraph abrogate Quo Primum? I cannot tell since it does not specifically state that Quo Primum is abrogated.

 

[JMJ_coder]

But how can that apply to the Novus Ordo when Trent also anathematized those who changed existing rites into new ones?

This has already been answered. If Pope Paul VI didn’t have the authority to issue his Missal then neither did Pope Saint Pius V. Saint Pius V’s Missal came out after the Council of Trent and it alter the rites (perhaps minimally perhaps not, but a change is a change is a change).

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

 

[JMJ_coder]

When Pope St. Pius X issued Divino Afflatu to replace Quod a Nobis from Pope St’ Pius V he wrote:
“Therefore, by the authority of these letters, we first of all abolish the order of the psaltery as it is at present in the Roman breviary, and we absolutely forbid the use of it after the 1st day of January of the year 1913. From that day in all the churches of secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious, by all and several who by office or custom recite the canonical hours according to the Roman breviary issued by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII, we order the religious observance of the new arrangement of the psaltery in the form in which we have approved it and decreed its publication by the Vatican printing press. At the same time we proclaim the penalties prescribed in law against all who fail in their office of reciting the canonical hours everyday; all such are to know that they will not be satisfying this grave duty unless they use this our disposition of the psaltery.”

I can find no such language in Pope Paul VI Misale Romanum that abrogates Quo Primum. the argument that Misale Romanum overides Quo Primum does not stand. Read the Documents:
fisheaters.com/quoprimum.html (Quo Primum)

sanctaliturgia.blogspot.com/2005/11/divino-afflatu-english.html (Divina Afflantu)

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html (Misale Romanum)

Here is the pertinent paragraph from Misale Romanum:
"In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, “for legitimate variations and adaptations,”(15) we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. Thus, in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation."

Does the last paragraph abrogate Quo Primum? I cannot tell since it does not specifically state that Quo Primum is abrogated.

From Summorum Pontificum:
It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But how can that apply to the Novus Ordo when Trent also anathematized those who changed existing rites into new ones?

As the Holy Father has said, there was no change to the rite, there are two forms of the one rite.

That is unless you claim to be the authority over the Holy Father in this matter.

 

[ProVobis]

As the Holy Father has said, there was no change to the rite, there are two forms of the one rite.

There are now two forms of the one rite, that’s true. But did the Holy Father specifically overturn his own earlier claims that the OF was a banal fabrication, which implied of course, that Paul VI’s CALLING the now-OF the NOVUS Ordo still stands, at least for historical and Trent-legal purposes?

You do inspire an interesting question, though. Did the Pope have to call it a new rite in order for it to be a new rite? The Pope promulgated the 1970 Missal; that’s all that matters in order for the Mass to be valid, no? If he had said it was a simple revision it would have been just as good, the OF would still be the OF, and the OF would still be just as valid.

But if you’re going to bring up one Trent anathema, you’ll have to look at all of them, I would think, in order to justify your charges. And when Trent decided on matters (piety, etc.) covering all valid liturgies at that time, the OF didn’t exist. If you can’t accept that, then I wouldn’t recommend bringing up anathemas that may not be applicable today. I think we’ve already established that many Trent’s canons, though binding at the time, (low tone, no vernacular clauses, etc.) were not infallible.

 

[dmorgan]

As the Holy Father has said, there was no change to the rite, there are two forms of the one rite.

That is unless you claim to be the authority over the Holy Father in this matter.

I do NOT claim any authority over anyone. God has authority over everything. I am simply attempting to learn why the Pauline Mass replaced the Mass of Pope St. Pius V as the established OF when the Mass of Pope St. Pius V was not abrogated by Pope Paul VI. I understand that Pope Paul VI had the right to change the Rubrics of the Mass, and the second Vatican council wanted changes made and a revised Mass to be promulgated, but an entirely new form was created and declared the OF in 1969 without Abrogating Quo Primum. Then for some 35 years you could not find a Tridentine Mass. Then we get the indult; then we get Summorum Pontificum and
“It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.”
So my question still remains: whether Quo Primum was still valid. I now believe the answer to be yes, it is.
So now I need to think on why Rome gave us another Form of the Rite but repressed the Tridentine without Abrogating it as Pope St. Pius X did when he issued Divino Afflantu. And why now are we seeing a resurgence of the Mass of Pope St. Pius V and what this means in relation to where we have been, are now and are going in the future.
Thanks to all for your comments.