Quo Primum

[Matthew_Holford]

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!”

Pope Paul VI did not abrogate Quo Primum. The final paragraph of his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969) says: “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.” It does not use the word abrogate. His Holiness Benedict Pp XVI has decreed that it was never abrogated.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Pope Paul VI did not abrogate Quo Primum. The final paragraph of his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969) says: “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.” It does not use the word abrogate. His Holiness Benedict Pp XVI has decreed that it was never abrogated.

Its the argument of abrogation with Quo Primum that the Missial of 1962 was not abrogated?

Quo Primum is a papal document and no pope may bind another pope in matters not dealing with faith and morals. Quo Primum deals with a matter of discipline so I do not think that the document requires aborgation, it would have been the Missal that required abortgation.

Anyways, its a moot argument as the pope has freed up the use of the EF.

This document has been discussed a lot on here, just do a search, which I am sure you did. May I ask why the questions about it?

 

[ProVobis]

Quo Primum is a papal document and no pope may bind another pope in matters not dealing with faith and morals.

Quo Primum is more binding than that. It was necessary to clarify some of the canons of the Council of Trent.

"By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum can never be revoked or modified, St. Pius V infallibly defined that Quo Primum is of itself irreformable. --Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, 1997).

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/qprimum.htm

Also:

cfnews.org/kramer.htm

cfnews.org/MaimedRites.htm

alcazar.net/quo_primum.pdf

 

[malphono]

Its the argument of abrogation with Quo Primum that the Missial of 1962 was not abrogated?

Quo Primum is a papal document and no pope may bind another pope in matters not dealing with faith and morals. Quo Primum deals with a matter of discipline so I do not think that the document requires aborgation, it would have been the Missal that required abortgation.

Yes, I have to agree, and if I may, add a thought or two, building on the idea that the subject matter of Quo Primum is not the document itself, but is rather, the Mass (or, more specifically, the Missal).

Historically, as we know, those Rites (all non-Roman) which had been in continuous use for at least 200 years were not suppressed by Trent (or since). The Rites that were suppressed by Trent were what I have frequently called “upstart usages” along with those ancient Rites which had already fallen into disuse (thus breaking the chain of continuity). There were several reasons for the latter, one of which was that some had already been supplanted by the Roman. In any case, the Missal of PP S Pius V was really the first universal codification of the Mass in the Roman Rite. In other words, there was and is no precedent for abrogating a universal form of Mass (Ordo Missae) in continuous use for more than 400 years. Could it be organically changed or modified? Yes, absolutely. That was done and accepted, and so made clear, by various Popes, including PP Bl John XXIII. Could it be abrogated or prohibited? No. Such action would likely shake the Church to her foundations.

PP Benedict XVI, in his letter to the bishops at the time Summorum Pontificum was promulgated, says this very well (emphasis added):

What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.

In some ways, that is perhaps the most important declaration in either the letter or SP itself.

 

[avus]

How odd that most of the replies are completely ignoring the original question, which was not “if” it had been abrogated but rather “what if” it had been. Which is a very good question.

My personal, non-expert thought is that the SSPX would still be in the same situation as they are now, since little has changed for the organization’s canonical standing as a whole (notwithstanding the four personal excommunications) since before the TLM was ruled still valid. Albeit probably with far fewer laity aligning themselves with the SSPX priests.

That said, I would add that the SSPX would - again, this is my personal, uninformed speculation - have been lobbying hard to get the TLM officially unabrogated, which would subsequently have been included in the Summorum Pontificum.

Bottom line: the 40 years in the catacombs would still have occurred, the indult (which really would have been necessary) would still have occurred, the SP would still have been issued including the TLM becoming unabrogated, and here in 2010 very little would have been different.

 

[laszlo]

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.

You are right, it was St Pius V. He ordered the somewhat changed Roman rite to be used by the universal Church. The Gallican and the Sharum rites were permanently suppressed, the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites were theoretically legal and even exercised for a while, but for our era renewed only in the 20th Century. Only some religious orders kept their rites intact until 1070.

Together with the Quo Primum half of Europe was lost to the protestantism, interestingly the German and Anglo-Saxon countries, whose language was distant from the Latin, so people did not understood the mass and the prayers at all.

God does not expects perfect decisions, but He stands with His Church, and her binding and loosing power.

 

[ProVobis]

Could it be abrogated or prohibited? No. Such action would likely shake the Church to her foundations.

Indeed.

In organizational theory, (and I attended the same graduate classes with priests et al), one learns about the stare decisis principle, by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. It is required in order to promote “stability, certainty, predictability, consistency, and fidelity to authority.” (nonpublication.com/bullet/stare.html)

There is no question that the Pope CAN authorize abolishment of certain practices or institute his own practices but the possible effects have to be weighed.

 

[ProVobis]

My personal, non-expert thought is that the SSPX would still be in the same situation as they are now, since little has changed for the organization’s canonical standing as a whole (notwithstanding the four personal excommunications) since before the TLM was ruled still valid.

Without the SSPX would the 1988 Ecclesia Dei, which also explicitly decreed the wide and generous" application of the 1962 Missal, even been issued at all? Or the 1984 Quattuor Abhinc Annos or the 2007 Summorum Pontificum, for that matter? Would the FSSP exist today? Wouldn’t we have all have continued to believe erroneously that Quo Primum was abrogated?

 

[avus]

Without the SSPX would the 1988 Ecclesia Dei, which also explicitly decreed the wide and generous" application of the 1962 Missal, even been issued at all? Or the 1984 Quattuor Abhinc Annos or the 2007 Summorum Pontificum, for that matter? Would the FSSP exist today? Wouldn’t we have all have continued to believe erroneously that Quo Primum was abrogated?

No, not if the SSPX did not exist at that time, of course. However, it did exist before 1988 and so was not dependent on Ecclesia Dei. Would the indult have happened in 1988? Perhaps, or perhaps not. It depends on whether the original FSSP priests would have felt able to return to full communion with Rome and retain the abrogated Mass. Whether JP would have been as willing to issue his indult if his experts had confirmed the TLM was, in fact, officially abrogated cannot be known. But I believe he would have been inclined to issue it simply as a (hopefully fatal) counter to the SSPX dissidents. So, yes, the SSPX and the FSSP probably would have followed the same course as they actually did. But the FSSP vocations might have been diminished, and groups like the ICK would likely not exist now at all.

 

[malphono]

The Gallican and the Sharum rites were permanently suppressed

Yes, but both had already fallen out of use on their own. The Gallican because it had been, (except for Lyon, the proper usage of which did survive Trent) supplanted by the Roman. The Sarum because the continuity had been broken due to the effects of Protestantism.

the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites were theoretically legal and even exercised for a while, but for our era renewed only in the 20th Century.

The Bragan and Lyonais Rites survived and remained in common use though the mid-20th century. Both can still be used and, in fact, are used. The Lyonais, from what I understand, is again being used on occasion by virtue of Summorum Pontificum, since it is, properly speaking, the “EF” in the Archdiocese of Lyon. The Bragan may be used (and is, at least occasionally), by priests of the Archdiocese of Braga. The Ambrosian Rite survived too; its traditional form was freed by Summorum Pontificum, so it is also in use along side the “modified” Ambroasian. The Mozarabic was maintained in Toledo and recently underwent a “reform” but at least it was a true “reform” where some Roman elements were stripped away. It’s still used in Toledo and was recently adopted by the Benedictines of Santo Domingo de Silas.

Only some religious orders kept their rites intact until 1070.

I imagine that was a typo and should have read 1970. Anyway, the Dominican, Carthusian, Cistercian, Carmelite, and Praemonstratentian Rites all survived Trent, and all (with the exception of the Norbertine which was abandoned shortly after Trent by vote of the General Chapter) are still in use. (The Carmelite was in suspended animation for some 35 years, but seems to have been recently revived, at least to a degree. The Carthusian, although “reformed” in the 1980s, has remained in continuous use. Use of the Dominican Rite is at the discretion of the Prior Provincial, and use of the Cistercian at the discretion of the Abbot, but both have remained in use and neither have ever been abandoned.)

Together with the Quo Primum half of Europe was lost to the protestantism

How so? Quo Primum was a result of Trent, which was itself called precisely because of the rampant heresies of Protestantism.

interestingly the German and Anglo-Saxon countries, whose language was distant from the Latin, so people did not understood the mass and the prayers at all.

I’m not so sure I can agree with that. If that proposition were true (a) all of Germany (and German-speaking lands) would have succumbed to the various Protestant heresies, which is clearly not the case, and (b) there would have been no “Catholic remnant” in England, which there clearly was. It’s also interesting to note that those same German and Anglo-Saxon countries were the ones that most ardently maintained the use of Latin in philosophy, the physical sciences, mathematics, etc.

 

[laszlo]

Quo Primum is more binding than that. It was necessary to clarify some of the canons of the Council of Trent.

So was the Quad a nobis for the Roman Breviary, and St Pius X overruled them, making deeper changes in the Breviary than Paul VI in the Mass. In 1911 the full Psalter was rewritten, the former repetitions were omitted, and rule to pray all the 150 psalms is every week was reconstituted.

 

[DavidPalm]

Historically, as we know, those Rites (all non-Roman) which had been in continuous use for at least 200 years were not suppressed by Trent (or since). The Rites that were suppressed by Trent were what I have frequently called “upstart usages” along with those ancient Rites which had already fallen into disuse (thus breaking the chain of continuity). There were several reasons for the latter, one of which was that some had already been supplanted by the Roman. In any case, the Missal of PP S Pius V was really the first universal codification of the Mass in the Roman Rite. In other words, there was and is no precedent for abrogating a universal form of Mass (Ordo Missae) in continuous use for more than 400 years. Could it be organically changed or modified? Yes, absolutely. That was done and accepted, and so made clear, by various Popes, including PP Bl John XXIII. Could it be abrogated or prohibited? No. Such action would likely shake the Church to her foundations.

This is a very interesting and it goes to the OP’s point. The OP asks what if Paul VI had formally abrogated the traditional Roman Rite. I think that the reason that this is an interesting and important question is precisely that there are certain theologians/canonists who question whether it would even be within his authority to do so. There are those who think that because the Pope has the preeminent authority in the Church he can do whatever he wants. But he is a servant of the Tradition, not its author. And there are aspects of the Church’s life which even he has no authority to abrogate. An example would be the dogmatic decrees of an ecumenical council or the solemn definitions of his predecessors. The Pope is not free to abrogate these, since to do so would call into question the very truth that Church is commissioned to proclaim. He could clarify them, expand upon them, but not simply abrogate them. There are some who have argued that a rite of the Mass as venerable as that of St. Basil or St. John Chrysostom of St. Gregory (the traditional Roman Rite) would fall into the same category and for the same reasons–they are such testaments to the Faith that to discard them would amount to the Church denying some part of herself. Certainly no Pope had ever done or even contemplated such a thing prior to 1969. I’m not myself certain that these theologians are correct, but they have a serious case to make. And even Cardinal Ratzinger has said certain things that run along these lines. That is why the question of whether Paul VI actually abrogated the traditional Roman Rite has been such a live one.

That’s where malphono’s comments hit the mark. Because we can see that even though Paul VI did not formally abrogate the traditional Roman Rite, he certainly gave the impression to many people that he did. And it did indeed shake the Church very badly. I am always surprised at those who downplay the role this de facto suppression had in the turmoil that we have witnesses these past decades. Over in another thread somebody recently pointed out quite reasonably that one only has to think of what would happen if the Pope suddenly announced that, starting next Sunday, the Novus Ordo would no longer be said and would be replaced by the traditional Latin Mass. As Jeff Foxworthy would say, it’d be pandolerium!

 

[ProVobis]

So was the Quad a nobis for the Roman Breviary, and St Pius X overruled them, making deeper changes in the Breviary than Paul VI in the Mass. In 1911 the full Psalter was rewritten, the former repetitions were omitted, and rule to pray all the 150 psalms is every week was reconstituted.

Perhaps there was a violation there. The only question I would ask is if that document can be tied to any of Trent’s canons.

…Another correspondent writing from the Middle East offers the parallel case of the 1568 document “Quod a Nobis” which introduced the new Roman breviary two years before the new missal. This document contains many expressions similar to “Quo Primum” regarding, for instance, the perpetual force of law, the obligation of use in all places, and the total prohibition of adding or omitting anything.

Our reader then comments: "As you are undoubtedly aware, St. Pius X radically rearranged the ancient Roman Psalter and changed a few lessons for a few days, and provided contracted lessons, among other changes in 1913. Moreover, he forbade the use of the old Psalter. This clearly shows that he was not bound by the prescriptions issued in ‘Quod a Nobis’ and since these are similar to those of ‘Quo Primum,’ those must not be binding either.

“I have found using ‘Quod a Nobis’ more effective because the adherents to ‘Quo Primum’ argue that it is restricted to the Ordinary (either whole or from the Offertory to Last Gospel), or to the Temporale only (despite evidence in encyclicals like ‘Grande Munus’ to the contrary). Since the Psalter is the most fundamental part of the breviary, no such statement can be made with regard to ‘Quod a Nobis.’”

ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur149.htm

 

[Matthew_Holford]

A few posters have mentioned the Sarum Rite. (I’m not sure if it’s technically a Rite or a Use.)

The opinion seems to be that either it’s been abrogated or at least fallen into disuse.

Has there been a revival? I know that Archbishop Mario Conti (Glasgow, Scotland, UK) celebrated a Sarum Mass as Aberdeen University (Aberdeen, Scotland, UK) in April 2000.