Author Topic: "Quo Primum" a short catechism (Read 1506 times)

inprincipio · « **on:** June 17, 2013, 11:58:17 PM »

This weekend after talking to a visitor at my home, I was struck with a thought. Perhaps many Catholics don't know why "Quo Primum" was written by Pope St. Pius V in 1570. So this is my feeble attempt to write question and answer using the words of Pius V in 1570.

For four hundred years the Roman Mass had been held as sacrosanct until 1962. Actually the changes in the Holy Week proceeded the Missal of John XXIII, but here I am just trying to shed some light on what is actually in "Quo Primum Tempore."

Why did Pope St. Pius V write “Quo Primum? “We gladly turned Our mind and energies, and directed all Our thoughts, to the matter of preserving incorrupt the public worship of the Church;”

Who assigned Pope St. Pius V with the task of revision and re-issuing the sacred books? “Whereas amongst other decrees of the holy Council of Trent, We were charged with revision and re-issue of the sacred books, to wit, the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary…”

How was this done and what kind of care was taken? "We resolved accordingly to delegate this task to a select committee of scholars; and they, having at every stage of their work and with the utmost care collated the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and reliable, original or amended, codices from elsewhere, and having also consulted the writing of ancient and approved authors who have bequeathed to us records relating to the said sacred rites, thus restored the Missal [of the Ancient Roman Rite] itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers."[/i]

Who needs to observe this missal of Pope St. Pius V? “This ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men, including the military Orders, or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church.

"To apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever, saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over 200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See's institution and confirmation of the church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than 200 years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid.”

Who can use another missal? All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals.

How long is this law in force? “…this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity.”

Can anything be added, omitted or changed? …. that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.

Is the missal canonized by Pope St. Pius V (1570) the same as the Missal of John XXIII (otherwise known as the 1962 missal? [The short answer NO] “this Missal must be followed absolutely” and “that nothing be added omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.

To whom does this apply? We specifically command each and every Patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy ROMAN Church or possessed of any other rank or preeminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, howsoever ancient, which they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Does that include prohibiting celebrating Mass in a man-made rite? …not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal. [It would certainly seem so.]

Can a priest say this missal indefinitely and lawfully? Should a priest fear disobedience of his superior by using this missal? …by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal must be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.

Can “Quo Primum” ever be revoked? … and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law…

Has “Quo Primum” been revoked? [No, but it has been ignored, it seems.]

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #1 on:** June 18, 2013, 10:49:10 AM »

What can be said about adding new feasts, etc, to the Propers, as began happening within a relatively short while after the promulgation of Quo Primum?

inprincipio · « **Reply #2 on:** June 18, 2013, 11:40:52 AM »

And this affected the ordinary of the mass.....how? :rolleyes:

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #3 on:** June 18, 2013, 01:27:40 PM »

http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/St_Pius_V/De_Defectibus.html

inprincipio · « **Reply #4 on:** June 18, 2013, 02:01:42 PM »

Thank you for adding "De Defectibus". I was trying to go through the back door talking about the disobedience in using the 1962 missal. I have heard someone liken it to a "gateway drug"...opening the door to worse drugs...the 1962 missal opening the door to more and more changes.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #5 on:** June 18, 2013, 02:04:25 PM »

It's so blatantly obvious what Pope Saint Pius V meant when he wrote the Quo Primum. Even when Pope Saint Pius V was still the Pope -after- Quo Primum, he changed a few things in the "missal."

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ORDINARY OF THE MASS. Of course there were going to be other saints after 1570. It wasn't about the propers and feasts. IT WAS ABOUT THE MISSAL, and do you really think anyone questioned WHAT EXACTLY A MISSAL WAS in 1570? :stare: No they knew exactly what he was talking about, or else THAT would have been cleared up in VERY SHORT ORDER.

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #6 on:** June 18, 2013, 03:33:42 PM »

Quote from: inprincipio

And this affected the ordinary of the mass.....how? :rolleyes:

And the word Ordinary is used... where? All I found was the word Missal used repeatedly. Did I miss it?

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #7 on:** June 18, 2013, 03:35:10 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

It's so blatantly obvious what Pope Saint Pius V meant when he wrote the Quo Primum. Even when Pope Saint Pius V was still the Pope -after- Quo Primum, he changed a few things in the "missal."

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ORDINARY OF THE MASS. Of course there were going to be other saints after 1570. It wasn't about the propers and feasts. IT WAS ABOUT THE MISSAL, and do you really think anyone questioned WHAT EXACTLY A MISSAL WAS in 1570? :stare: No they knew exactly what he was talking about, or else THAT would have been cleared up in VERY SHORT ORDER.

Thank you, I think. What exactly did Pope Pius V change in the Propers? I thought it was his successor who made the first change.

inprincipio · « **Reply #8 on:** June 18, 2013, 06:47:23 PM »

Pope St. Pius V, was not introducing a new Mass; he was canonizing the Roman Mass which has been handed down to us from the Apostles.

With all due respect MiserereMeiDeus, you sound like a true modernist...sorry if I offend you, but Pope Pius IX understood very well what Quo Primum meant. That's why he wouldn't put St. Joseph in the canon. "I am only the pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?"

Just a question out of curiosity: Why is it that you find so much difficulty with the text of this docuмent? If Pope St. Pius V's stated purpose of issuing the docuмent was to preserve "incorrupt the public worship of the church" by canonizing the missal and it succeeded in doing so for 400 years why are you arguing against what others understood this docuмent to mean?

If we take your logic, and we just toss "Quo Primum" in the garbage can with all the pre-vatican 2 bulls, dogmas and ancient customs of the Church, then, we can say to each other, "Welcome to the Church of the New Advent".

Oh, and please, don't complain of the abuses of the Novus Ordo then, because that's exactly what you get...

This docuмent was a product of the greatest council in the Church and the work of the Holy Ghost and for you to act like you don't understand what it means just baffles me.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2013, 01:11:04 PM »

In my opinion, I do not believe Quo Primum was intended as binding on future popes. "Only 34 years after the publication of Quo Primum, Pope Clement VIII made a general revision of the Roman Missal, as did Pope Urban VIII 30 years later. The custom of placing tabernacles on altars, introduced later, made it necessary to introduce new rituals not in the missal of Pius V." This is not to say that I regard the modern service as Catholic, rather, the modern Sunday service is a masonic implementation designed to displace Catholic Liturgy.

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #10 on:** June 20, 2013, 10:56:19 AM »

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #11 on:** June 20, 2013, 11:06:56 AM »

Quote from: inprincipio

Pope St. Pius V, was not introducing a new Mass; he was canonizing the Roman Mass which has been handed down to us from the Apostles.

With all due respect MiserereMeiDeus, you sound like a true modernist...sorry if I offend you, but Pope Pius IX understood very well what Quo Primum meant. That's why he wouldn't put St. Joseph in the canon. "I am only the pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?"

Just a question out of curiosity: Why is it that you find so much difficulty with the text of this docuмent? If Pope St. Pius V's stated purpose of issuing the docuмent was to preserve "incorrupt the public worship of the church" by canonizing the missal and it succeeded in doing so for 400 years why are you arguing against what others understood this docuмent to mean?

If we take your logic, and we just toss "Quo Primum" in the garbage can with all the pre-vatican 2 bulls, dogmas and ancient customs of the Church, then, we can say to each other, "Welcome to the Church of the New Advent".

Oh, and please, don't complain of the abuses of the Novus Ordo then, because that's exactly what you get...

This docuмent was a product of the greatest council in the Church and the work of the Holy Ghost and for you to act like you don't understand what it means just baffles me.

You say that I have trouble with the text and sound like a modernist, but in fact I am merely seeking clarity on what exactly the words mean. The Missal of 1570 has been changed repeatedly, both in the Propers and in the rubrics of the Ordinary. Some people say we should stick with the Missal of 1570, others say the pre-1955, others the pre-1962, some are even okay with the 1962. You may have a degree in pre-Vatican II theology, but not all of us have undergone the advanced training that you've apparently been fortunate enough to receive. I am not advocating that Quo Primum be thrown into the trash can. If I were to advocate any radical change, it would most likely be to throw all changes subsequent to 1570 into the trash can — but I am not advocating that because I am not certain that those changes in fact violated Quo Primum, even through by the "text" itself it appears that they may have.

No one, yourself included, has been able or willing to show me where in the docuмent it says it's permitted to change the Missal in certain ways but not in others. Instead, they act like I'm either a moron or a modernist.

Quote from: parentsfortruth

It's so blatantly obvious what Pope Saint Pius V meant when he wrote the Quo Primum. Even when Pope Saint Pius V was still the Pope -after- Quo Primum, he changed a few things in the "missal."

Again, I am not aware of any such change. Please be specific.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #12 on:** June 22, 2013, 08:38:26 PM »

Pius V himself added the Feast of Our Lady of Victory I believe, to commemorate Lepanto. Therefore Pius V couldn't have meant that no feasts could be added, or else he was schizophrenic. It's just common sense that new Saints would be added to the calendar in the future. He was referring to substantial changes to the fixed parts of the Mass.

Sigismund · « **Reply #13 on:** June 22, 2013, 10:49:28 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

In my opinion, I do not believe Quo Primum was intended as binding on future popes. "Only 34 years after the publication of Quo Primum, Pope Clement VIII made a general revision of the Roman Missal, as did Pope Urban VIII 30 years later. The custom of placing tabernacles on altars, introduced later, made it necessary to introduce new rituals not in the missal of Pius V." This is not to say that I regard the modern service as Catholic, rather, the modern Sunday service is a masonic implementation designed to displace Catholic Liturgy.

Whether was intended to or not, it can't be. Liturgical directives are matters of discipline. Popes can legislate on matters of discipline for the whole church, but they cannot bind their successors, who will also be the supreme legislator of the Church during their reign.

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #14 on:** June 24, 2013, 04:45:09 PM »

This is what really drives me nuts about the state of the Church today. There are no clear answers, no clear direction, none of that. Is the pope pope? Are the bishops bishops? Is this de fide? Is that ex cathedra? Is the other binding?

Who says?

What do they know?

Ay yi yi. I think my head is going to explode.