Was Quo Primum Ever Abrogated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZoomerVince
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
No, it does not mean it still applies. Disciplines that a pope gives in his life time do not have to be formally abrogated. No pope can bind a subsequent pope in matters of discipline.
Click to expand...
I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly: When Pope Pius V died, Quo Primum no longer applied?
 
ZoomerVince said:
I’m asking if Quo Primum ever was abrogated in the first place. And if not, wouldn’t that mean that it is still in effect?
Click to expand...
My assumption is yes, it was at least provisionally abrogated by Pope St. Paul VI’s very act of issuing his revised Roman Missal (yes, the Ordinary form is a revision of the Roman Missal, just as the Tridentine Missal was a revision of the Roman Missal in its day).
 
ZoomerVince said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
I don’t know how that percolates down to the hypothetical scenario of a recalcitrant diocesan priest who attempts to play this trump card, and tell his bishop, “no, I’m not celebrating the OF, when I say Mass, it will always be the EF”. Just using my mother wit and sensus catholicus (such as it is), I would say that the obedience to his bishop, which he promised at the time of his ordination, would take priority — “yes, Father, that is true, you may always say the EF, but your ‘marching orders’ are, unless specified otherwise, where you have a congregation, to say the OF, because that’s what we do in this diocese, it’s part of your ‘job description’, so to speak”.
Click to expand...
After Summorum Pontificum, all priests can say the Traditional Latin Mass, with or without approval of their bishop. So your understanding of even that is flawed, unless I’m misreading what you’re saying.
Click to expand...
No, here is what I am saying:
  • Any priest may say the TLM at will.
  • He does not need his bishop’s permission.
  • However, the bishop can say “for regular celebrations of Mass in your parish, you must use the OF”.
  • He has not denied the priest permission to say the TLM in general, he has just directed that “right here, right now, in these circumstances, I want you to say the OF”.
  • In those circumstances, if the priest says “no, I’m going to say the TLM instead”, then he’s guilty of insubordination. If he doesn’t ever want to have to say the OF, then he needs to transfer to the FSSP or a similar group.
  • It would be as if a priest were bi-ritual (Roman and Byzantine), he would be called upon to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, and he would say “no, I’m going to celebrate the Roman Rite (either one) instead”.
  • And if a priest has an issue of conscience with celebrating the OF, well, then, that’s a whole-another kettle of fish right there. Much greater problem.
ZoomerVince said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
And let’s not forget that the missal, whether OF or EF, is always being “revised” to incorporate new propers and other prayers for newly canonized saints, as well as other changes to the liturgical calendar. Protocols for the EF were recently revised to accommodate new saints, to address the situation of the EF missal having been basically “frozen in 1962”.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between revising a missal and instituting a new one.
Click to expand...
Many will tell you that it is one and the same missal, just revised, as is the Church’s prerogative.
 
Last edited:
ZoomerVince said:
I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly: When Pope Pius V died, Quo Primum no longer applied?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s that Quo Primum no longer applied. I think that it only applied provisionally until a future pope (in this case, Pope St. Paul VI) changed the discipline - which, as others have pointed out, several popes did (including Pius V himself), just not to the extent that Pope St. Paul VI did.
 
ZoomerVince said:
I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly: When Pope Pius V died, Quo Primum no longer applied?
Click to expand...
No, it just didn’t necessarily apply. The first time a subsequent pope changed anything, then that is what would have applied. Another Pope did not need to say he was abrogating anything. A Pope could come along today and say all sacred vessels had to be silver, platinum, glass, or vibranium. That would be the rule, even though what Pope John Paul wrote was never abrogated.

Just the existence of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal means that previous instructions are not applicable. I guess if we wanted to get just a little more speculative, not much more, we could say it still applies. All we need is a time machine and return to the Sixteenth Century to find it. I say it is just a little more speculative, as I have seen this whole Quo Primum thing sensationalized here over and over again.
 
Last edited:
I know he called it “two forms of the one Roman Rite” or “two forms of the same rite,” something along those lines. 😉
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I know he called it “two forms of the one Roman Rite” or “two forms of the same rite,” something along those lines. 😉
Click to expand...
I guess that’s what I’m recalling.

I once got “torn a new one” by a priest for referring to the “old Mass”. He told me in no uncertain terms that there is no “old” Mass, there is no “new” Mass, it is just the Mass, period. That was years before Summorum Pontificum.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I once got “torn a new one” by a priest for referring to the “old Mass”. He told me in no uncertain terms that there is no “old” Mass, there is no “new” Mass, it is just the Mass , period. That was years before Summorum Pontificum.
Click to expand...
Although I’d certainly disagree with the priest’s actions of tearing you a new one over it, I certainly agree that there is no “old Mass” vs. “new Mass”. There’s just the Mass. My personal preference is for the Ordinary Form as I was raised in it and served it daily for nearly a decade. I was very familiar with the Extraordinary Form at a young age (had a good chunk of it memorized in Latin by the time I was 12), but even then preferred a well-celebrated Ordinary Form.

Now it’s all water under the bridge. I exclusively attend a Maronite Catholic parish and am in the process of canonical transfer.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
I once got “torn a new one” by a priest for referring to the “old Mass”. He told me in no uncertain terms that there is no “old” Mass, there is no “new” Mass, it is just the Mass , period. That was years before Summorum Pontificum.
Click to expand...
Although I’d certainly disagree with the priest’s actions of tearing you a new one over it, I certainly agree that there is no “old Mass” vs. “new Mass”. There’s just the Mass .
Click to expand...
I’m willing to leave that question in the hands of those who made the changes, Paul VI, Bugnini, et al. You can argue it either way.

I have an overwhelmingly strong preference for the TLM/EF, but assist at the OF when I must, out of duty and obligation, not to mention that my nearest Sunday diocesan TLM is two hours away. A Saturday morning TLM is a tad closer, but still over an hour away, and Saturday morning is never a good time to catch me. I have served many Masses, both OF and EF.
 
Indeed. I’ve read many of your posts in the past, and your preference is certainly clear. That being said, I’ve always appreciated how respectful you’ve been when talking of the OF as one who prefers the EF. 👍
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
My assumption is yes, it was at least provisionally abrogated by Pope St. Paul VI’s very act of issuing his revised Roman Missal
Click to expand...
So it was latae sententiae abrogated by Paul VI?
Phillip_Rolfes said:
yes, the Ordinary form is a revision of the Roman Missal, just as the Tridentine Missal was a revision of the Roman Missal in its day
Click to expand...
Except the missal of Paul VI is a new missal, just as the Tridentine Missal was a new missal as stated in Quo Primum:

“This new rite alone is to be used…”

And the missal of Paul VI was introduced as a new missal (‘Novus Ordo Missae,’ or ‘new order of the Mass’).
 
HomeschoolDad said:
  • However, the bishop can say “for regular celebrations of Mass in your parish, you must use the OF”.
  • He has not denied the priest permission to say the TLM in general, he has just directed that “right here, right now, in these circumstances, I want you to say the OF”.
  • In those circumstances, if the priest says “no, I’m going to say the TLM instead”, then he’s guilty of insubordination. If he doesn’t ever want to have to say the OF, then he needs to transfer to the FSSP or a similar group.
Click to expand...
I would just quote Aquinas on this one:

“It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q33, a4, reply to objection 2).
HomeschoolDad said:
Many will tell you that it is one and the same missal, just revised, as is the Church’s prerogative.
Click to expand...
Many may tell you that, but Paul VI would disagree by the very fact that he entitled the apostolic constitution ‘Missale Romanum: On New Roman Missal’ (as is stated on the Vatican’s own website).
 
Benedict XVI did use the phrase ‘renewed’ when referring to the New Mass, but of it he also said it, “reappears in new splendour in its dignity and harmony” (Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, Quoting Pope Saint John Paul II, 2007).
 
There is a difference between a rite and a missal. Quo Primum deals with a missal.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I once got “torn a new one” by a priest for referring to the “old Mass”. He told me in no uncertain terms that there is no “old” Mass, there is no “new” Mass, it is just the Mass , period. That was years before Summorum Pontificum.
Click to expand...
There are two Masses. The Mass of John XXIII (what used to be the ordinary form), and the Mass of Paul VI (the new ordinary form). Using the term ‘new Mass’ also implies that it is derivative of the Old one.
 
ZoomerVince said:
I would just quote Aquinas on this one:

“It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered
Click to expand...
You may have quoted the words, but might have missed part of the meaning. A priest saying OF instead of the EF in no way endangers the Faith, unless you are prepared to claim that the Magisterium and the Pope are teaching error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top