Was Quo Primum Ever Abrogated?

[pnewton]

whatistrue:

A priest saying OF instead of the EF in no way endangers the Faith

Wrong.

What the heck?

I see I was misled. I thought you wanted to ask a question. You misled me, and probably others. You clearly have an agenda, the old, “my Mass is better than your Mass” stuff that used to be banned here, as this is a Catholic website, an official apostolate out of San Diego, not some schismatic radical offshoot of the Church.

 

[ZoomerVince]

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

I’ve gone to plenty of New Masses where they are said/sung in English. So are those Masses illicit because they violate Sacrosanctum Concilium?

 

[otjm]

Missal is irrelevant. He made changes to the Mass. Any time a Pope has made changes to a Mass, a “new missal” (book) has been published.

 

[otjm]

NO.

Instead of arguing with me, why don’t you take it up with Rome, since they are the authority?

 

[otjm]

So are those Masses illicit because they violate Sacrosanctum Concilium?

Sacrosanctum Concilium was the outline; it was not a “binding” document but rather an outline of what was wanted.

 

[ZoomerVince]

Missal is irrelevant. He made changes to the Mass. Any time a Pope has made changes to a Mass, a “new missal” (book) has been published.

It was introduced as the “Novus Ordo Missae” or New Order of the Mass.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

When did he change the discipline?

When he promulgated the Ordinary Form.

 

[ZoomerVince]

Why would the natural conclusion of the promulgation of the New Mass be that the discipline had been changed, rather than that he had violated the previous discipline?

 

[otjm]

It was introduced as the “Novus Ordo Missae” or New Order of the Mass.

And what is your point?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Wrong.

The burden of proof is on you to show how a priest celebrating the OF instead of the EF endangers the Faith. As well as to show how/where the Pope and Magisterium are teaching error. But I suspect that such a conversation at this point isn’t going to bear much fruit.

 

[ZoomerVince]

It is a New Mass.

 

[Fauken]

And what is your point?

That we’re all likely stupid heretics for failing to interpret a 500 year old Papal Bull correctly, Pope(s) and bishops included, something which the Supreme Legislator of canon law and the very head of the Church on earth can’t undo unless he says so explicitly, even though he has the power to do such a thing.

 

[ZoomerVince]

I was told by someone that I could be banned for criticizing the New Mass so I’m going to move on from that subject. Also that’s beyond the scope of what I was originally asking for. I got off track.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’ve gone to plenty of New Masses where they are said/sung in English. So are those Masses illicit because they violate Sacrosanctum Concilium?

No because SC left it up to local bishops and local jurisdictions (bishops’ conference) to determine the extent to which the vernacular language(s) could be use in the Liturgy.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Because the previous discipline as established by Quo Primum was not binding on future popes - and couldn’t be.

 

[ZoomerVince]

I have gotten various different answers to my original question. Some people have said that Quo Primum was never abrogated, some said that its discipline was abrogated with the introduction of the New Mass. So idrk at this point.

 

[otjm]

Why would the natural conclusion of the promulgation of the New Mass be that the discipline had been changed, rather than that he had violated the previous discipline?

There is no violation of discipline; that presumes that discipline is immutable, It is not and never has been for the last 2,000 years.

It is not a “natural conclusion”. It is the conclusion of people who do not like the Ordinary Form of the Mass, know next to nothing of liturgical history, have no grasp of liturgy itself, and are, like Don Quixote, tilting with windmills.

As I noted, you are tilting against the last 6 Popes, the vast majority of bishops of the world who signed SC, and the vast majority of the bishops of the world since then who have accepted the validity of the OF.

You have started to argue in a circle; as answers have been given, so further conversation simply goes back to a repeat of what has been said.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I think the real question is, did Quo Primum need to be explicitly abrogated by a pope before any sort of changes could be made.

As it was a matter of discipline and not doctrine, it seems the answer is “no,” especially since various changes have been made to the Extraordinary Form by past popes (prior to Vatican II) without any of them explicitly stating that they were abrogating the missal of Pope Pius V.

 

[Fauken]

As it was a matter of discipline and not doctrine, it seems the answer is “no,” especially since various changes have been made to the Extraordinary Form by past popes (prior to Vatican II) without any of them explicitly stating that they were abrogating the missal of Pope Pius V.

Something that Pope Benedict XVI noted in Summorum Pontificum.

 

[ZoomerVince]

What are you thoughts on the notion that Quo Primum is not dealing with simply Church discipline, since it deals with the Liturgy which is far more important than most other disiplines?