Quo Primum

[thistle]

I am of the view that the FORM of the Mass does not come under doctrine but falls under disciplinary law and that apart from the consecration and the priest receiving anything else in Mass can be changed. Also in matters of disciplinary law no Pope can bind a future Pope.

How does Quo Primum figure into this. An SSPX guy maintains that the form of the Mass in its entirety falls under doctrine and not discipline and therefore Quo Primum is binding and the Ordinary Form of the Mass is therefore invalid.

I’m not looking for opinions on which Mass people prefer. I am focussing only on whether the FORM of the Mass falls under doctrine or discipline and if Quo Primum is binding or not with regard to the Mass.

Any help on this?

 

[ProVobis]

Quo Primum abrogated all rites created afer 1370AD. Haven’t we exhausted this topic?

 

[bobballen_18]

I can’t really answer your question, but I’m interested in this question, so I’m subscribing.

I do have a few thoughts though - I used to think that was a convincing argument by the SSPX people, and in some ways, I still think it makes sense. The thing that would go against their argument is that, well, is the form of the Mass of 1962 the EXACT same that it was in 1570 or whatever? If so, then great, their argument holds, no matter what. But I highly doubt that the Mass didn’t change ONE BIT between 1570 and 1962. In fact, a quick google search will let you know that the first revision was in 1604. I guess one would have to look back and look to see what those revisions were. Also, do rubrics fall under the “form” of the Mass, that is, I wonder if the SSPX would consider rubrics to be something that Paul V was talking about in Quo Primum? I would hope not - that same quick google search tells me that at the very least, there were “major rubric revisions” in Pius X’s revisions.

I mean, I don’t think they could make the argument that the Mass stayed the exact same from 1570-1962. I could understand their argument, and I’d much more inclined to agree with them, if it weren’t for (what I am assuming to be) the fact that the Mass did change in that time period, even if in only small ways.

So I guess that means either a) that Quo Primum was not binding and that the form of the Mass is certainly not doctrine, or b) Quo Primum was binding for all eternity and ever since probably 1604 the Church has had an invalid Mass. Lol. I’m inclined to believe (a).

 

[ProVobis]

So I guess that means either a) that Quo Primum was not binding and that the form of the Mass is certainly not doctrine, or b) Quo Primum was binding for all eternity and ever since probably 1604 the Church has had an invalid Mass. Lol. I’m inclined to believe (a).

You are right. The underlying doctrines behind the Mass were/are expressed in the Trent documents, especially Session 22. However, the anathemas behind changes, etc. have since been removed. Perhaps also the philosophy and psychology have changed but that isn’t what the OP is asking. The form of the Mass is not the issue.

 

[Brendan]

How does Quo Primum figure into this. An SSPX guy maintains that the form of the Mass in its entirety falls under doctrine and not discipline and therefore Quo Primum is binding and the Ordinary Form of the Mass is therefore invalid.

The existence of the legitimate Byzantine and ot he Eastern Catholic Rites itself would disprove that.

Each of those have a different form. So either those Churches are not in doctrinal union with Rome, or the premise is invalid

Compound this with the fact that Pope Pius XIII himself said a Byzantine Divine Liturgy. Did their namesake Pope make a doctrinal error by leveraging a different Form of the Mass?

When Pope Nicholas I authorized SS Cyril and Methodius to translate the Mass into Slavonic, and create a liturgy for the Slavs, was that the creation of a new doctrine? If so, do Popes have the power to create new liturgies, even in the vernacular, or did Pope Nicholas make a doctrinal error?

Finally, there are several changes to the Liturgy that were done after Quo Primum, such as the addition of St. Joseph to the Roman Canon. If the Form of Mass is doctrinal, does that mean that the SSPX acknowledges doctrinal development?

 

[JerryZ]

I very much doubt that the first masses officiated by the Apostles themselves were identical to the ones given in 300 AD or in the 1500, 1855 or 1962.

Number one I would be willing to bet to anyone that many masses were said in Aramaic by the Apostles, at the same time they would also have been given in Greek.
Why? Well most of the early Churches were founded in Greek speaking lands.
Most of the Jews LIVING in the Holy Lands back then ONLY spoke Greek.

St. Peter and St. Paul moved to the then capital of the Roman empire and there eventually Latin became the language of the mass. This does not mean that the rest of Churches located in Greek speaking lands changed their rubrics. Not at all, they continued using their native Greek in their liturgy. This is why in the Church there are distinct “Rites” that can be used by their respective Sui Juris Churches.

This is the silver bullet that kills any claims that the Missal is Doctrine. It never was. Otherwise ALL churches would HAVE to follow 1 “Rite”. Presumably in Aramaic.

However the Apostles DID NOT force any of the Churches founded by them to learn Aramaic, did they?

In fact 700 years before Jesus the clamouring of the Jews forced their religious leaders to commission the first ever translation of the Old Testament.
And THEY started the first ever “Missal” update so that their faithful could follow what was said at their Sabbath meetings.

What is “Doctrinal” are the “contents” of the mass. Which to any sharp observer ARE the same no matter what Sui Juris Church or “Franca Lingua” mass you attend to.
(Franca Lingua = Language spoken by the people of a region)

And we retain certain aspects of ancient masses even in today’s missal.
Like the “Kyrie Eleison” (Greek) and the “Agnus Dei” (Latin) in today English missal.
Any one ever wondered what “Antiphon” means? It is Greek, look it up. And so many other words we still use today AND were used in the Latin mass.

Just my :twocents:
Now I will retreat to the bunker for the incoming. :manvspc:

…

 

[ProVobis]

Finally, there are several changes to the Liturgy that were done after Quo Primum, such as the addition of St. Joseph to the Roman Canon. If the Form of Mass is doctrinal, does that mean that the SSPX acknowledges doctrinal development?

Yes, there was debate over that change to the Canon, which supposedly Quo Primum codified. But the anathema which Trent imposed was removed actually by Pius XII in 1948 Mediator Dei (if not before). It specified that the Pope AND ONLY the Pope had the right to add or remove elements from the liturgies, or words to that effect.

 

[ProVobis]

What is “Doctrinal” are the “contents” of the mass.

Here are the Doctrines of the Mass as expressed by Trent.

thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm

 

[ProVobis]

The existence of the legitimate Byzantine and ot he Eastern Catholic Rites itself would disprove that.

Quo Primum essentially abrogated all rites created after 1370 AD. I believe most Eastern rites were not affected.

 

[Cider]

You are right. The underlying doctrines behind the Mass were/are expressed in the Trent documents, especially Session 22. However, the anathemas behind changes, etc. have since been removed. Perhaps also the philosophy and psychology have changed but that isn’t what the OP is asking. The form of the Mass is not the issue.

I find that so ironic for lack of a better term.

 

[Brendan]

Quo Primum essentially abrogated all rites created after 1370 AD. I believe most Eastern rites were not affected.

That would be one other proof that Form is not doctrinal. Can a Pope abrogate doctrines?

 

[ProVobis]

That would be one other proof that Form is not doctrinal. Can a Pope abrogate doctrines?

Physically or authoritatively?

 

[ProVobis]

That would be one other proof that Form is not doctrinal. Can a Pope abrogate doctrines?

In theory, no.

But there is a limit to what he can abrogate, I would think. If the Pope decided to change the rosary into the Mass, for example, I’m sure there would be some violation of doctrine.

 

[malphono]

 

[otjm]

I am of the view that the FORM of the Mass does not come under doctrine but falls under disciplinary law and that apart from the consecration and the priest receiving anything else in Mass can be changed. Also in matters of disciplinary law no Pope can bind a future Pope.

How does Quo Primum figure into this. An SSPX guy maintains that the form of the Mass in its entirety falls under doctrine and not discipline and therefore Quo Primum is binding and the Ordinary Form of the Mass is therefore invalid.

I’m not looking for opinions on which Mass people prefer. I am focussing only on whether the FORM of the Mass falls under doctrine or discipline and if Quo Primum is binding or not with regard to the Mass.

Any help on this?

Since you say “an SSPX guy”, I am assuming that you are not speaking of an SSPX priest.

There are any number of people who hold theological opinions (for here, within the world view of the SSPX) who have no theological degree - even as low a level as a B.A., but who hold forth as if they did. And not to make too fine a point of it, but there are people who have a degree in Theology (including some priests), whose coursework is, politely, suspect, and whose opinions do not exactly reflect the teaching of the Magisterium. To which I would add, not all are of the SSPX world view, as I don’t presume anyone would put Father Hans Kung, or Father Curran in that genre.

I can’t speak for the matter of how open-minded anyone within the SSPX world view is (and never mind the wag who suggests some are so open-minded that… well, you know, something might fall out). But in order not to be sucked into a maelstrom akin to Alice’s Wonderland, I would suggest using what my mother used to use. When the “SSPX guy” starts in again, just say “Oh.” Nothing else; not one word more, other than to repeat. It does wonders for untracking chaos.

Getting into a dispute with them is one of the greater time wasters one can engage into.

Other posters have pretty much answered the issue at the base of this, so I will not repeat. But keep in mind that some of us who were taught our faith before V2, were on occasion taught things as if they were doctrine and immutable, and they weren’t. They were disciplinary, and while it was implied, if not stated that they were immutable, it was not out of ill will that such was taught; pretty much most things seemed to be unchangeable. Which is to say, another way, that there was not much local dispute over much of anything. Some have carried forward from that time, and seemingly cannot get their minds around the fact that what was taught, was taught in innocence, but was incorrect in some aspects. I would suspect, from personal experience, that there are a goodly number of supporters of the SSPX who have that background.

 

[Vico]

I am of the view that the FORM of the Mass does not come under doctrine but falls under disciplinary law and that apart from the consecration and the priest receiving anything else in Mass can be changed. Also in matters of disciplinary law no Pope can bind a future Pope.

How does Quo Primum figure into this. An SSPX guy maintains that the form of the Mass in its entirety falls under doctrine and not discipline and therefore Quo Primum is binding and the Ordinary Form of the Mass is therefore invalid.

I’m not looking for opinions on which Mass people prefer. I am focussing only on whether the FORM of the Mass falls under doctrine or discipline and if Quo Primum is binding or not with regard to the Mass.

Any help on this?

For the Latin Church this is the competency of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/index.htm

 

[pnewton]

That would be one other proof that Form is not doctrinal. Can a Pope abrogate doctrines?

I think this is the best response to the someone from the SSPX. If Quo Primum can be taken to mean that the form of the Mass is doctrine, then it is self contradictory as it codified changes in the Mass. The better way to view it is literally, as in take the present tense it is written in as the present tense. The punishment of anathema was to be applied to those who violated the terms he defined at that time.

 

[ProVobis]

I think this is the best response to the someone from the SSPX. If Quo Primum can be taken to mean that the form of the Mass is doctrine, then it is self contradictory as it codified changes in the Mass. The better way to view it is literally, as in take the present tense it is written in as the present tense. The punishment of anathema was to be applied to those who violated the terms he defined at that time.

I would say to him that he is/was using the wrong document to make his case. Quo Primum “only” has the weight of an Apostolic Constitution, the same weight in fact as Veterum Sapientia (1962) and Missale Romanum (1969), which too can be abrogated by a future Pope.

I’d argue that a stronger case can be made by citing the Trent’s Session 7 Canon XIII (concerning condemnation of approved AND received rites). Yes, it does list it as an anathema under a creed but it does have the backing of an ecumenical council. And, AFAIK, this has never been lifted.

 

[JerryZ]

Here are the Doctrines of the Mass as expressed by Trent.

thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm

And it is interesting that in your link there we can read this:

CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or,** that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only;** or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

So Trent distinguishes between masses celebrated in a different languages from the “vulgar tongue”.

So what could it this “vulgar tongue” be?
Back in the Apostles time the “vulgar tongue” in Italy was Latin. At the time of the Council Italian was already the language most people used, Latin and Greek was the languages of the learned.
But the point remains that the Council anathematized any one claiming that the Liturgy HAD to be carried out in one language only.

So someone back in Trent time must have claimed something like “only this language is valid to use at mass” that the Council said “NO” this is NOT necessary, Mass CAN be said in different languages and that does NOT invalidate it.

…

 

[Vico]

And it is interesting that in your link there we can read this:

So Trent distinguishes between masses celebrated in a different languages from the “vulgar tongue”.

So what could it this “vulgar tongue” be?
Back in the Apostles time the “vulgar tongue” in Italy was Latin. At the time of the Council Italian was already the language most people used, Latin and Greek was the languages of the learned.
But the point remains that the Council anathematized any one claiming that the Liturgy HAD to be carried out in one language only.

So someone back in Trent time must have claimed something like “only this language is valid to use at mass” that the Council said “NO” this is NOT necessary, Mass CAN be said in different languages and that does NOT invalidate it.

…

Fr. David posted in 2011 on this forum: “Even during the time of Trent the Mass of the day was celebrated in other languages. In Bosnia and Dalmatia it was celebrated in Slavonic. In Calabria and Sicily it was celebrated in Greek. In Bohemia it was celebrated in Czech. All of these were by papal dispensation.”