Quo Primum

  • Thread starter Thread starter quantum_star22
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

quantum_star22

Guest
…Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing…"-Pope St. Pius V
 
quantum_star22 said:
…Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing…"-Pope St. Pius V
Click to expand...
How does that apply today?
 
quantum_star22 said:
…Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing…"-Pope St. Pius V
Click to expand...
If you do a search you’ll find that this issue has been hashed, rehashed and yet again hashed, many times over.

And that these threads eventually get locked down.
 
Is there a question somewhere? The old Latin Mass has not been abrogated.
 
OraLabora said:
If you do a search you’ll find that this issue has been hashed, rehashed and yet again hashed, many times over.

And that these threads eventually get locked down.
Click to expand...
As a new Catholic, can someone enlighten me on what the argument is about? Is this an issue between the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the Extraordinary or Latin Form?
 
AKDee said:
As a new Catholic, can someone enlighten me on what the argument is about? Is this an issue between the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the Extraordinary or Latin Form?
Click to expand...
For what it’s worth, here’s my take on this controversy. We start off with a question: Is a Pope empowered to enact changes to the liturgy of the Mass? If the answer is Yes, then Pius V acted within his rights when he issued his papal bull *Quo primum *in 1570, and Paul VI was similarly acting within his rights when he issued his apostolic constitution Missale romanum in 1969.

On the other hand, if the answer is No, then Paul VI exceeded his authority when he changed the liturgy in 1969, and equally Pius V exceeded his authority when he changed the liturgy in 1570.
 
AKDee said:
As a new Catholic, can someone enlighten me on what the argument is about? Is this an issue between the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the Extraordinary or Latin Form?
Click to expand...
Essentially (and this is the 30,000 foot view - other threads have details):
  • There were many different rites (types of Masses codified in Missals) in use at the time both in the Church and in Priestly groups (Dominicans, Franciscans, etc.) when Pope St. Pius V, via the bull Quo Primum, said that the there would only be one “official” Mass rite for the Church (what today we call the Extraordinary Form or Latin Mass). Pius could do this since the way we say Mass is a discipline, not a doctrine.
  • Some “traditionalists” today argue that the Ordinary Form of the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI is invalid since they wrongly believe Quo Primum set the type of Mass for all time. What they don’t understand is that no Pope can bind any other Pope on matters of discipline and the way we say Mass is a discipline.
As an example: Pope Francis can, today, decree that no one may say any other form of the Mass except the Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy. From this day on, that is the Mass that is said and that is how we worship. No discussion. No objection. It is a discipline and he is the Pope. The next Pope can then decree that we go back to the Ordinary form and that then becomes the way we worship.
 
TheDoctor said:
Pius could do this since the way we say Mass is a discipline, not a doctrine.
Click to expand...
Question I have, and perhaps it’s a philosophical one, is this: Is a change in theology (by additions or translations among other things) considered a matter of discipline? Maybe we’re looking at this whole discipline vs doctrine thing the wrong way, especially when it can result in instability of an organization.
 
AKDee said:
As a new Catholic, can someone enlighten me on what the argument is about? Is this an issue between the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the Extraordinary or Latin Form?
Click to expand...
Dee, do yourself a favor. Don’t even get involved in it. You’ll be a lot happier as a Catholic. More peaceful too. 🙂 👍
 
ProVobis said:
Question I have, and perhaps it’s a philosophical one, is this: Is a change in theology (by additions or translations among other things) considered a matter of discipline? Maybe we’re looking at this whole discipline vs doctrine thing the wrong way, especially when it can result in instability of an organization.
Click to expand...
I’m not a philosopher or theologian but… Changing theology is not disciplinary.

As for the two forms of Mass, it can be argued that it was not a change in theology but a change in what theology would be emphasized in the Mass. Changing theological emphasis in liturgy is a disciplinary matter.

Nevertheless, even “only” a change in emphasis can also be destabilizing and have far-reaching consequences (for better or worse).

Dan
 
ProVobis said:
Question I have, and perhaps it’s a philosophical one, is this: Is a change in theology (by additions or translations among other things) considered a matter of discipline? Maybe we’re looking at this whole discipline vs doctrine thing the wrong way, especially when it can result in instability of an organization.
Click to expand...
You ask an interesting question and one which I readily admit I am neither well read enough or educated enough in theology and philosophy to answer definitively.

What I will opine is that for me, theology is what is taught as truth and discipline is how that truth is implemented. The truth is that at Mass, bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus by the words of consecration. The discipline is the prayers that make surround that miracle.

I make my “Mass is a discipline” argument on the shoulders of those more learned in the Church, e.g. if the Pope doesn’t have a problem with it, I should not have a problem with it.

P.S. - One of the frustrating things on the forum for me is that it is hard to read and digest these deep philosophical questions in a written form. I would love to sit with a few forum friends and a Guiness and discuss this long into the night…
 
dans0622 said:
I’m not a philosopher or theologian but… Changing theology is not disciplinary.

As for the two forms of Mass, it can be argued that it was not a change in theology but a change in what theology would be emphasized in the Mass. Changing theological emphasis in liturgy is a disciplinary matter.

Nevertheless, even “only” a change in emphasis can also be destabilizing and have far-reaching consequences (for better or worse).

Dan
Click to expand...
Thanks for your (and TheDoctor’s) responses which I can live with.

For the record, though, I didn’t mean to compare forms. I don’t have to. For example, in 1960 the very words of the Canon were changed to include St. Joseph and it caused a mild uproar. That in itself was not a change in theology, but the Pope had to decide how to word it. Is St. Joseph Mary’s Spouse or the Spouse of the same Virgin? Pope John decided on the latter. This was subsequently changed, however. But more to the point, wasn’t his decision based on Church dogma?

I can provide other examples, such as the translation of pro multis among other things, or the very definition of the Mass, but I can’t see where a Pope has total freedom in such matters.
 
quantum_star22 said:
My question is this: how can some people assert that the Mass is only a matter of discipline?
Click to expand...
Because much of it is discilpline, like the specific language. As the Mass at the time of the document is not the same Mass that had been used since the beginning of the Church, this should be obvious.
 
quantum_star22 said:
My question is this: how can some people assert that the Mass is only a matter of discipline?
Click to expand...
I tried to show that it isn’t, because the Mass is more a matter of expressed theology, which is rooted in Church doctrine and dogma. So the language and wording become very important as well.
 
ProVobis said:
So the language and wording become very important as well.
Click to expand...
While language is important, it is still a matter of discipline, within parameters, the precise language that is used. Multiple valid Masses have always existed (as far as I can tell). They exist today, anyway. If I remember what JR said once, they also existed at the time of Trent, which is why that particular Mass is important, as it unified the Roman Catholic rite (though again I believe JR said some orders still had the option of using their traditional form).

I hate to use the word “discipline” as it is often taken to mean that any change is possible. Yet I do not know a single word that covers *allowable *changes, as opposed to heretical changes. Maybe I am not saying this well.
 
pnewton said:
I hate to use the word “discipline” as it is often taken to mean that any change is possible. Yet I do not know a single word that covers *allowable *changes, as opposed to heretical changes. Maybe I am not saying this well.
Click to expand...
Well (and fair) enough, although the word “heresy” is perhaps overused these days when theological change or shift might be more appropriate. It really depends on the type of change. Something like adding or subtracting a reading to or from the liturgy is more of a discipline, whereas changing the description of St. Joseph in the Canon or EP might have a few theologians throwing up their arms. In fact, I remember some claiming that Pope John XXIII might have set a dangerous precedent by adding St. Joseph to the canonized Roman Canon to begin with. That was the first time the Roman Canon had been touched since before Trent, I believe.
 
ProVobis said:
Something like adding or subtracting a reading to or from the liturgy is more of a discipline, whereas changing the description of St. Joseph in the Canon or EP might have a few theologians throwing up their arms.
Click to expand...
Okay, you caught me in a moment of ignorance with this. Is there some question of whether St. Joseph is a saint? What is the theological difficulty with this?
 
pnewton said:
Okay, you caught me in a moment of ignorance with this. Is there some question of whether St. Joseph is a saint? What is the theological difficulty with this?
Click to expand...
Had nothing to do with his sainthood. It was his relationship to Mary/Virgin. See #13.

It was just an example, btw, either of a theological change or theological uncertainty, since it’s been changed in the vernacular. .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top