Was Quo Primum Ever Abrogated?

[pnewton]

pnewton:

Another Pope did not need to say he was abrogating anything.

What are you basing this off of?

That is just my impression of what I remember of canon law back when I got Catholic Answer on the radio. I would say all one need to is attend Mass and see if it is the same as the Sixteenth Century. It isn’t rocket science.

 

[whatistrue]

You claim to be Catholic, but do not accept the teaching authority of the Magisterium. Seems like a bit of cognitive dissonance there.

 

[ZoomerVince]

You claim to be Catholic, but do not accept the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

I accept the teaching authority of the Magisterium, I just think it can err.

 

[whatistrue]

I accept the teaching authority of the Magisterium, I just think it can err.

That seems like an oxymoron to me.

 

[otjm]

Yes, I’ve been to some sadly. And Quo Primum is specifically referencing the Tridentine Missal.

No, that is incorrect. The Missal was how the Mass was said; and how the Mass has been said over the centuries has changed with the additions and deletions of a multitude of Popes.

T:here is nothing in Quo Primum which forbids a future Pope to modify the Mass (missal simply refers to the book in which the Mass is set out - with text, and with rules). The essence of what you are holding is that one Pope can bind a future Pope on matters of discipline, and the Church does not hold that.

Neither the rules (rubrics) nor the prayers said or removed are matters of morals or doctrine; no doctrine says the Mass has to be said in Latin; no dictrine says that prayers at the goot of the altar have to be said; or that the Last Gospel has to be said, and no morals or doctrine say that the Mass cannot have an Old Testament reading.

Nor does Quo Primum.

 

[ZoomerVince]

If you think that the Magisterium is always inerrant, then you’ll have a rude awakening when you read Church history.

 

[ZoomerVince]

The essence of what you are holding is that one Pope can bind a future Pope on matters of discipline, and the Church does not hold that.

I do not hold to that. I’m asking if Quo Primum was ever abrogated. That’s all.

 

[otjm]

I accept the teaching authority of the Magisterium, I just think it can err.

Perhaps a thorough review of what the Magisterium is might be advised. You also might, if you wish to follow the Church, change the reading and viewing you have been doing, as it is a backguard attack on the last 6 Popes and the bishops in union with them.

 

[whatistrue]

when you read Church history.

And why do you think I haven’t? I can’t decide for sure exactly what the issue is here. But in order to remain charitable and keep my equilibrium I must disengage from possible trolling or possible egregious error. Welcome to the Ignore bucket.

 

[ZoomerVince]

You also might, if you wish to follow the Church, change the reading and viewing you have been doing, as it is a backguard attack on the last 6 Popes and the bishops in union with them.

Of course, it has to be personalized. I disagree with some things Popes have said/done, and therefore I’m attacking them.

 

[otjm]

I do not hold to that. I’m asking if Quo Primum was ever abrogated. That’s all.

As Quo Primum, reduced to its essence said that only the Pope can make changes to the Mass, no it has not been abrogated. And abrogation of it would say that someone other than the Pope has the authority to change the Mass, or without his approval, research changes.

 

[ZoomerVince]

So if Quo Primum was never abrogated, it would still be in effect. And so to would the following:

“Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.”

 

[otjm]

Of course, it has to be personalized. I disagree with some things Popes have said/done, and therefore I’m attacking them.

They have done nothing which was not in their power to do.

And as an aside, I find it interesting when people who have no training in liturgy or liturgical history attack not only 6 Popes, but nearly every bishop in the world when the changes were made. Sacrosanctum Concilium was approved by 2,147 bishops, with 4 objecting.

 

[ZoomerVince]

Sacrosanctum Concilium was approved by 2,147 bishops, with 4 objecting.

Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t institute the New Mass. Sacrosanctum Concilium even said, "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites (Sacrosanctum Concilium 36:1).

 

[otjm]

“Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.”

As noted elsewhere, Quo Primum does not bind future Popes; the language “Let all everywhere” refers to those who are not Pope.

That is why it has been suggested repeatedly that people who wish to read what Popes have written need training in understanding how Popes state things.

There is nothing in Quo Primum which needs abrogating; he did not have the power to bind future Popes and that language did not do so. The reference was to all who were/are not Popes.

 

[otjm]

Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t institute the New Mass. Sacrosanctum Concilium even said, "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites (Sacrosanctum Concilium 36:1).

Sacrosanctum Concilium was the outline of the direction the bishops of the world decided the Mass revisions should take. Latin has not been done away with, and if you want to quote the document, it also had qualifiers in it as to language.

 

[ZoomerVince]

Latin has not been done away with

Where in the New Mass does anyone say anything in Latin?

 

[otjm]

So therefore, given that Quo Primum was never abrogated. The Tridentine Mass is still the ordinary form of the Mass and the New Mass would be illicit because it violates Quo Primum:

“Let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.”

Cute. Wrong. Future Popes were not bound, and QP does not need to be abrogated for future Popes to make changes.

 

[otjm]

When the Sanctus or the Agnus Dei is said in Latin.

As I said, there were qualifiers. Y’all have a good day. Your opinion is in an extreme minority of the vast number of Catholics.

Your questions have been asked and answered world wide for decades, and here and there someone pops up and starts it all over again.

 

[ZoomerVince]

Future Popes were not bound, and QP does not need to be abrogated for future Popes to make changes.

Paul VI didn’t make changes to the Roman Missal. He wrote a new missal.