Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Quo Primum  (Read 864 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ChristusRex1571

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Reputation: +5/-1
  • Gender: Male
Quo Primum
« on: March 20, 2020, 08:16:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I have heard an argument against Quo Primum that similar language of calling down indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum ejus was used in Quod a nobis, which prohibited changes to the breviary. Yet St Pius X changed the breviary. How are we to respond to this?
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10299
    • Reputation: +6212/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Quo Primum
    « Reply #1 on: March 20, 2020, 08:41:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Yes, this similar language was used in many different docuмents of the time.  Pope St Pius V wrote Quo Primum, but he turned around and revised his own docuмent a few years later!  About 5 popes have revised Quo Primum since then, ending with the most recent, John XXIII.  However, a revision is not the same thing as overturning the law, or making substantial changes.  The language used at the end of the docuмent prohibits substantial, essential changes; it does not prohibit minor, non-essential revisions.
    .
    The real question on Quo Primum is this:  1) Is this law still in force?  2) Did Pope Paul VI make Quo Primum null and void?  The answers are "yes" and "no".
    .
    Further questions and answers:
    3) Did Paul VI have the right, and papal authority to make QP null and void?  Yes.
    4) Did he use this power to make QP null and void?  No.  Pope Benedict said in his "motu proprio" that QP was still in force.
    5) Is Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution only a revision of QP?  No, it is a new and separate law.  +Benedict confirmed this in his "motu proprio".
    6) Is then, the new mass a revision of QP?  No, it is a new liturgy, separate from QP and separate from all of the 2,000 years of Church Tradition.
    7) Is the Tridentine (i.e. from Trent) liturgy still allowed by QP?  Yes, in perpetuity.  This was confirmed by +Benedict's "motu" when he said the latin mass "was always allowed".
    8) Is the Tridentine mass obligatory and commanded to be used by QP?  Yes, under pain of sin.
    9) Does Quo Primum allow any edits, revisions, additions or changes to the Tridentine liturgy?  No.  Unless authorized by the pope himself and only if non-essential.
    10) Then is the new mass contrary to the law of QP, which does not allow any other rite to be used, except the Tridentine right?  Yes, the new mass is a grave sin against QP's law.
    Logged

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1424
    • Reputation: +1360/-142
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Quo Primum
    « Reply #2 on: March 20, 2020, 03:31:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • This quote is from Fr. Kramer's book but this matter was covered at the time by John Vennari. I believe the Commission of 9 Cardinals also concluded that Quo Primum had never been abrogated.

    Quote

    https://fatima.org/books/the-ѕυιcιdє-of-altering-the-faith-in-the-liturgy/

    More recently, it has been acknowledged by the highest authorities in the Church that: 1) the old Mass was never forbidden to be said by a Catholic priest in good standing; and furthermore, 2) no one – not even a religious superior, bishop or Cardinal – could forbid a priest from saying the old Mass.

    This acknowledgement of the law that the old Mass could be said was stated in 1986 by the Commission of the nine Cardinals (namely, Cardinals Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palazzini and Tomko) appointed by Pope John Paul II to address issues concerning the old rite.

    This Commission’s findings were known to a small circle but not very widely published at the time as it should have been.
    The very existence of the Commission as well as its findings was publicly acknowledged and expounded upon by Cardinal Alphons Stickler on May 20, 1995 in a publicly reported (and tape recorded) Question and Answer session in Fort Lee, New Jersey, USA.

    In fact, Cardinal Stickler stated for the record that all nine Curial Cardinals on that Commission (all 9 had Doctorates in Canon Law) agreed and declared that NO bishop, Cardinal or religious superior had the legal authority to ever forbid a Catholic priest (in good standing of the Roman Rite) from offering the Tridentine Mass in public or private.

    Logged
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10299
    • Reputation: +6212/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Quo Primum
    « Reply #3 on: March 20, 2020, 04:27:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    I believe the Commission of 9 Cardinals also concluded that Quo Primum had never been abrogated.
    Very true, but unfortunately, JPII never publically agreed with the commission.  With +Benedict's "motu" statement, we know, factually and legally, that Quo Primum is still law.
    Logged

    Offline Greenways Flyer

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 52
    • Reputation: +38/-68
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Quo Primum
    « Reply #4 on: March 25, 2020, 01:11:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote
    10) Then is the new mass contrary to the law of QP, which does not allow any other rite to be used, except the Tridentine right? Yes, the new mass is a grave sin against QP's law.
    Doesn't QP allow other rites to be used as long as they predate QP by 200 years?
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10299
    • Reputation: +6212/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Quo Primum
    « Reply #5 on: March 25, 2020, 08:22:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Doesn't QP allow other rites to be used as long as they predate QP by 200 years?
    Yep.  The reason those rites were allowed to continue is because they were substantially the same as the Tridentine rite.  The whole purpose of QP was to stop the madness of liturgical changes, as the number of rites which had evolved were many and the changes/additions were too many so that uniformity in the mass was being lost. 
    .
    For example, the only differences of the Benedictine rite is the addition of "St Benedict" to the Confiteor prayer, some additional bows by the priest/servers to the St Benedict statue, and a few other shows of piety.  99% of the rest of the mass is the same.  Such small differences are also in the Dominican rite.  All of the older rites were basically the same as the Tridentine rite and that was the point.  The Tridentine rite was trying to return to normalcy.
    .
    The new mass is a new rite altogether; the similarities aren't 99% but maybe only 30%.  The new mass is an essential change.
    Logged

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4452
    • Reputation: +5061/-436
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Quo Primum
    « Reply #6 on: March 25, 2020, 12:51:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ChristusRex1571 on March 20, 2020, 08:16:42 AM
    I have heard an argument against Quo Primum that similar language of calling down indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum ejus was used in Quod a nobis, which prohibited changes to the breviary. Yet St Pius X changed the breviary. How are we to respond to this?
    .
    There is no problem with a change to the mass, and something like half a dozen popes revised Pope Pius V's missal.  The problem is inventing a complete new mass out of thin air.  That's what the NOM is.
    .
    Also, when I say there is no problem with a change to the mass, I of course mean a legitimate change.  One couldn't legitimately change the mass by, say, removing the consecration. 
    .
    The type of language in papal legislation-- about how no one can alter this, etc.-- is legal boilerplate.  It's just meant to communicate that the legislation is universal to the class of persons on whom it is imposed, not to say that a future pope cannot make this or that legitimate alteration.
    Logged
    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »