Quo Primum

[Matthew_Holford]

First of all, I would like to say that I am not ANTI the EF Mass.

I am wondering how those folks who prefer the EF Mass would have dealt with the situation if Pope Paul VI had in his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3rd April 1969) abrogated Quo Primum and abolished the 1962 Missale Romanum of Pope Blessed John XXIII.

 

[roadsend]

That is pretty much what a lot of us were told that he did.
It took a long time for most of us to find out the truth.

 

[Wesley7]

EF stands for Eastern Fulcrum? . .

 

[Matthew_Holford]

EF stands for Eastern Fulcrum? . .

An abbreviation for Extraordinary Form (Forma extraordinaria) the name the Supreme Pontiff Benedict PP XVI has decided we shall call the 1962 Missal of Pope Blessed John XXIII. (The Missal of Pope Paul VI (in its 3rd typical edition, 2002) is to be called the Ordinary Form (OF)).

 

[Matthew_Holford]

That is pretty much what a lot of us were told that he did.
It took a long time for most of us to find out the truth.

I wonder why it took so long as it now seems so clear it was never abrogated.

 

[laszlo]

First of all, I would like to say that I am not ANTI the EF Mass.

I am wondering how those folks who prefer the EF Mass would have dealt with the situation if Pope Paul VI had in his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3rd April 1969) abrogated Quo Primum and abolished the 1962 Missale Romanum of Pope Blessed John XXIII.

He did not abrogated, simply followed the previous practice : the Liturgy is the instrument which unites the Church, consequently any new version had to be accepted by everyone.

The problem was, that he did not understood, that if the lower clergy and the laity are considered mature enough to let their voices to be heard and their decisions to be realized, then the unity of the forms will be shaken at least for a while.

The Church will survive. I suppose many people believe that after St Pius X ordered the TLM to be the Mass of the universal Church everyone followed the decision. In Hungary even in the middle of the seventeenth Century half of the Roman Catholic priests celebrated the Holy Mass in vernacular and according to their own rule.

In principle the New Mass is good, emphasizes the ends of the Holy Mass.

We: gathering, learning, offering; Jesus: sacrificing himself, feeding, sending us

better then the TLM. The excesses, especially the fact that is many parish the mass became the celebration of the human success, also the lack of reverence toward the Eucharist, are not elements on the New Mass, but abuses. The TLM is not abused on the same way only because it involves less that 1% of the Catholics, those who has special attitude toward the forms.

 

[jbuck919]

I wonder why it took so long as it now seems so clear it was never abrogated.

It was never abrogated but it was authoritatively superseded, and not with much in the way of resistance at the time. People forget that large numbers of priests, even those with years of experience, welcomed the new Ordo Missae.

 

[Mark1970]

First of all, I would like to say that I am not ANTI the EF Mass.

I am wondering how those folks who prefer the EF Mass would have dealt with the situation if Pope Paul VI had in his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3rd April 1969) abrogated Quo Primum and abolished the 1962 Missale Romanum of Pope Blessed John XXIII.

Good question.

Personally, I was born in 1970, and first learned about the EF from my grandmother, looking at her old missals and some photos in the back of a family bible. If the EF had completely disappeared, it would probably have stayed at that, I would never have attended one but wished that i could have done.

That’s assuming that the EF had disappeared. As somebody commented above, many beople believed it had been abrogated and carried on attending it anyway. So, assuming it really had ben abrogated, there would presumably still have been people who could have celebrated/attended the EF, albeit illicitly.

So in my case, it would have depended on whether I would have had access to an illicit EF Mass, and whether I would have been rebellious enough to attend it. Prior to 2007 I have attended TLM’s that I had reason to believe weren’t approved by the bishop (in the days when that was required) so I suppose I might have done.

 

[ProVobis]

I wonder why it took so long as it now seems so clear it was never abrogated.

They didn’t have the internet for information then. Third- and fourth-hand information let you go Fridays without penance, let you use your conscience more in matters of birth control, no one goes to Hell anymore, inter alia. Then later we found out different.

People forget that large numbers of priests, even those with years of experience, welcomed the new Ordo Missae.

A large number also left the priesthood. I know because I knew several ex-priests, one of which was my cubemate and another I had classes with, who told me many of the things we’re all finding out now. Another priest told me that he was given three weeks to learn the new missal or get out.

 

[Pregustator]

An abbreviation for Extraordinary Form (Forma extraordinaria) the name the Supreme Pontiff Benedict PP XVI has decided we shall call the 1962 Missal of Pope Blessed John XXIII. (The Missal of Pope Paul VI (in its 3rd typical edition, 2002) is to be called the Ordinary Form (OF)).

Can you please quote for me the text in which the “Supreme Pontiff Benedict PP XVI” actually writes that he has “decided” that all of us sheep must now call the Tridentine Mass the “Extraordinary Form Mass” and that we must all likewise call the current Mass the “Ordinary Form Mass”. Because I’m fairly certain that a pope would never pretend to have the tyrannical authority to decide for other people what they will or will not call this or that.

I’d like to see the actual text of this papal decision or decree, please. I want to see where the pope actually writes, “I have decided that all persons of Anglophone tongue shall herewith say ‘Extraordinary Form Mass’ instead of ‘Latin Mass’, ‘Tridentine Mass’, ‘Mass of St. Pius V’, ‘Trentish Mass’ or any other name that you people used to call it…”

This idea that persists amongst some people who use this forum that the terms “EF” and “OF” are now somehow mandatory is so absurd that I feel the need to call you on the carpet and demand the pope’s actual words that lead you and others like you to believe that this is, or even could be, so. Let us debunk this nonsensical assertion once, and for all.

 

[At_Trent]

He did not abrogated, simply followed the previous practice : the Liturgy is the instrument which unites the Church, consequently any new version had to be accepted by everyone.

The problem was, that he did not understood, that if the lower clergy and the laity are considered mature enough to let their voices to be heard and their decisions to be realized, then the unity of the forms will be shaken at least for a while.

The Church will survive. I suppose many people believe that after St Pius X ordered the TLM to be the Mass of the universal Church everyone followed the decision. In Hungary even in the middle of the seventeenth Century half of the Roman Catholic priests celebrated the Holy Mass in vernacular and according to their own rule.

In principle the New Mass is good, emphasizes the ends of the Holy Mass.

We: gathering, learning, offering; Jesus: sacrificing himself, feeding, sending us

better then the TLM. The excesses, especially the fact that is many parish the mass became the celebration of the human success, also the lack of reverence toward the Eucharist, are not elements on the New Mass, but abuses. The TLM is not abused on the same way only because it involves less that 1% of the Catholics, those who has special attitude toward the forms.

It was Pius V laszlo, not Pius X. And remember, Pius V codified an existing Rite, the Gregorian Rite, so that it would be prayed the same everywhere. The pre-Trent Mass resembled the OF in that it varied from one area to the other. Today, it has reverted to the same situation with the OF.

 

[At_Trent]

I’d like to see the actual text of this papal decision or decree, please.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions the liturgical reform is being called into question. This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form the Forma ordinaria of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.
summorumpontificum.net/2007/07/letter-to-accompany-summorum-pontificum.html

He didn’t command nor decree anything, he just expressed a way to distinguish between the two.

 

[drforjc]

He did not abrogated, simply followed the previous practice : the Liturgy is the instrument which unites the Church, consequently any new version had to be accepted by everyone.

The problem was, that he did not understood, that if the lower clergy and the laity are considered mature enough to let their voices to be heard and their decisions to be realized, then the unity of the forms will be shaken at least for a while.

The Church will survive. I suppose many people believe that after St Pius X ordered the TLM to be the Mass of the universal Church everyone followed the decision. In Hungary even in the middle of the seventeenth Century half of the Roman Catholic priests celebrated the Holy Mass in vernacular and according to their own rule.

In principle the New Mass is good, emphasizes the ends of the Holy Mass.

We: gathering, learning, offering; Jesus: sacrificing himself, feeding, sending us

better then the TLM. The excesses, especially the fact that is many parish the mass became the celebration of the human success, also the lack of reverence toward the Eucharist, are not elements on the New Mass, but abuses. The TLM is not abused on the same way only because it involves less that 1% of the Catholics, those who has special attitude toward the forms.

Your opinion. I do not happen to share it.

“We: gathering, learning, offering; Jesus: sacrificing himself, feeding, sending us”

All present in the EF.

 

[At_Trent]

Your opinion. I do not happen to share it.

“We: gathering, learning, offering; Jesus: sacrificing himself, feeding, sending us”

All present in the EF.

look at this one

“The Tridentine Mass was meant for those who could not make the transition from Latin to English [or other languages] after the Council. But there is no participation by the people, and I don’t believe that instills the spirit of Christ among us.”
ncregister.com/blog/cardinal_mahony_vs._latin_mass/

That is ridiculous, and it becomes appalling when one learns those are the words of a Cardinal. Especially since it was said after the Summorum Pontificum.

 

[Wesley7]

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Pitting one fom of the mass against the other is not allowed. Answer the OP’s queston or move along.

Thank You

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[ProVobis]

I suppose many people believe that after St Pius X ordered the TLM to be the Mass of the universal Church everyone followed the decision. In Hungary even in the middle of the seventeenth Century half of the Roman Catholic priests celebrated the Holy Mass in vernacular and according to their own rule.

There were probably areas where rites other than the TLM were celebrated, depending on whether they had the priests to say them or not obviously and with Vatican approval, but Quo Primum specified that only rites older than 200 years before Quo Primum were licit and valid, in the whatever existing language they had at the time I presume. (That would make it 1370 AD and before.) Quo Primum had actually clarified the canon of Trent which forbade setting up new rites; Trent also forbade Masses said “only in the vernacular” or wording to that effect.

I am wondering how those folks who prefer the EF Mass would have dealt with the situation if Pope Paul VI had in his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3rd April 1969) abrogated Quo Primum and abolished the 1962 Missale Romanum of Pope Blessed John XXIII.

That’s all speculation because that didn’t happen. The matter was clarified by the 2007 SP.

 

[gentle_atheist]

I am wondering how those folks who prefer the EF Mass would have dealt with the situation if Pope Paul VI had in his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3rd April 1969) abrogated Quo Primum and abolished the 1962 Missale Romanum of Pope Blessed John XXIII.

Paul VI did abrogate Quo Primum. If not, then why did JP2 issue an indult for the TLM? “Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Here is an excellent history of what Catholics in Pittsburgh had to go through in order to preserve the TLM. It was the same story in every diocese. mysite.verizon.net/vzewdcj1/PDA/chap-one.htm

I recall 30 years ago when I was arranging a funeral Mass for my grandmother and I asked the priest if it could be a TLM.

“No!” he said. “It is forbidden!”

 

[DavidPalm]

Paul VI did abrogate Quo Primum. If not, then why did JP2 issue an indult for the TLM? “Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

John Paul II assembled a commission of cardinals to study the question of whether the TLM had been legally abrogated and they were unanimous that it had not. Cardinal Ratzinger was one of those cardinals. The recommendation was to make this clear to the Church, to make clear that all Latin Rite priests are free to say the TLM. Under pressure from certain European bishops, John Paul II instead issued an indult. Your confusion is understandable, since your definition of an indult is correct.

Years before Summorum Pontificum was issued I asked this question of one of the superiors of a Latin Mass order. If the TLM has not been legally abrogated, then is not the indult really a legal fiction, demanding permission for that for which no permission is actually necessary? The answer was yes. Issuing that “indult” was not the late Holy Father’s finest hour, but at least now things have been set straight.

 

[ProVobis]

Paul VI did abrogate Quo Primum.

Let’s say he wanted to limit its use. He did allow certain older priests to say the old Mass. And then there was the Agatha Christie Indult.

On the other hand, JPII and BXVI wanted to widen its use.