Still, all those Popes before Paul VI still put Quo Primum, since they saw only additions and changes in the Propers of the liturgy (however people may find them distasteful) doesn't amount to changing the whole rite.

True, too, the addition of St. Joseph set the dangerous precedent that even the most sacred prayer in the whole Traditional Latin Mass no longer was a "canon" in the sense it always had, leading to the changes in the Words of Consecration logically by Paul VI. This is where I say John XXIII took little heed of Tradition in this matter.

God willing, we'll see the judgment of the Holy See on all this when this crisis finally passes.

Quote

That would include Quo Primum. It is irreformable!


Quo Primum says:

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present docuмent cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.

Quo Primum was a disciplinary law of the Church.  A future Pope can make changes to it.  I have tried to tell you the truth about this, but you seem fixed in your ideas.  

If you believe a Pope lacks the power to bind and loosen laws, then you are denying Our Lord's words to St. Peter, and the explicit teaching of the Church, and Sacred Tradition.  I hope you are just confused on this and are not culpable.

By the way, if you go to Mass on Sunday, you are not going to the same Mass as approved by St. Pius V.  There have been changes to the Missal since Quo Primum.  

No, it actually was not disciplinary.


Is Quo Primum Merely Disciplinary?

by Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., S.T.L. [Can.]

Editor's Introduction:

    What follows is an edited transcript of a response to a question addressed to Father Paul Kramer during the 6th Annual Catholic Family News Conference, November 2000. In his response, Father Kramer explains that even if Pope Saint Pius V's Quo Primum were never written, the consistent teaching of the Church tells us that the Traditional Rite of Mass-----the Tridentine Mass-----may not be discarded and replaced with a "New Order" of liturgy.

    Father Kramer's remarks are timely in light of the fact that the current Cardinal Prefect of the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei earlier this year, admitted that the Tridentine Mass has never been abrogated and is perfectly licit, but the Vatican does not want to say this publicly because it fears reprisals from many of the world's bishops. During the recent negotiations between the Vatican and the Society of Saint Pius X, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos admitted reluctantly, "Okay, we recognize that the old Mass is not abrogated and is legitimate, but we cannot say it publicly because there will be too much of a rebellion, and difficulties with the bishops. We cannot say it publicly." [1]

    Likewise, Catholic Family News has twice published the remarks of Vatican Cardinal Alphonse Stickler who explained that he was one of a nine-member Commission of Cardinals appointed by Pope John Paul II to study the question of the Tridentine Mass. The nine-Cardinal Commission concluded:

    a) The Latin Tridentine Mass has never been abrogated;
    b) All priests have the right to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. [2]

    For a brief explanation of why the Tridentine Mass cannot be abrogated and remains licit, we publish the following comments of Father Kramer. We have also published the complete text of Quo Primum with this issue.

Question:

How do you respond to Catholics who claim that Quo Primum was a disciplinary decree and not infallible? Therefore, the creation of the Novus Ordo liturgy was permissible.

Answer by Father Kramer:

The first thing I would point out-----according to the approach that St. Thomas Aquinas used in his analysis in his various questions-----is that the question is not sufficiently formulated.

The claim that Quo Primum was a "disciplinary decree" strongly seems to suggest that it was entirely, essentially and merely a disciplinary decree and therefore, not infallible.

First of all, for the sake of argument, let us assume that it was something merely disciplinary. It would not follow logically, therefore, that the creation of the Novus Ordo was permissible. Because the Church's doctrine regarding liturgy is formulated in many pronouncements-----infallible pronouncements-----before Quo Primum was ever issued.

It was the Council of Trent that solemnly declared anathema-----that is, it is a heresy-----to say that any pastor in the Church, whosoever he may be, has the power to change the traditional rite into a new rite. This is found in Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:"

    "If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

For six hundred years, the Popes made a solemn profession at their Coronation, a public and solemn profession, that they did not have the power to change the liturgy. Then they invoked the wrath of God upon themselves if they should dare to change it or allow anyone to change it.

READ THE OATH AND THE TRIDENTINE PROFESSION OF FAITH [OR CREED]

The 1565 Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, also known as the "Tridentine Profession of Faith," binds the Catholic to his traditional rites, to the "received and approved rite." One must embrace and adhere to the received and approved customary rites of the Church. This is the faith. Therefore, the creation of the Novus Ordo is contrary to the defined dogma of the faith, contrary to the faith solemnly professed in the profession of the Popes, contrary to the Tridentine Profession of Faith.


    We cannot say that Quo Primum is merely a disciplinary decree. It is disciplinary, of course, it refers to discipline. But it is a disciplinary decree based on dogma. It is rooted in dogma and therefore, it has a much greater force than something merely disciplinary.

It has been perpetually the teaching of the Church that Catholics are bound to their customary rite. That is why, in the controversy regarding Greek versus Roman rite, which was settled by the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV, the Council solemnly defined that the Greeks are to confect the Sacraments of the Eucharist according to their customary rite and therefore, they must use the leavened bread. In the Roman Church they must follow their customary rite of their ritual church, which is the proper rite of the Roman Church.

This is what the faith dictates and decrees. That is why it has always been regarded as an act of schism if even a Pope were to attempt to change the rites, to alter the ceremonies of the liturgy. The Popes have solemnly professed for so many centuries that this is not within their power. This is also taught by the official designated theologian of the Council of Basel [which eventually moved to Florence and became the Council of Florence]. This theologian, Cardinal Juan de Torquemada, was the theologian responsible in the formulation of the doctrines that were defined at Florence, as the one I mentioned earlier. Torquemada explains that if the Pope were to change the rites, or attempt to change the rites, he would be committing an act of schism.

Thus, regardless of Quo Primum, it had been a well established teaching of the Catholic Faith that the Roman rite cannot be trashed and replaced with a new rite. To do so is contrary to the law of God as defined by the infallible Magisterium of the Church.

Beyond that, however, when we look at Quo Primum, we see that Pope St. Pius V refers to the Roman rite as that rite "which has been handed down in the Roman Church." He was clearly designating that the rite in the Missal that he codified is precisely that rite which is the customary rite, "the received and ap- proved rite customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments." [Trent, Sess. 7, Cn. 13]

Therefore, the so-called Tridentine Rite of Mass is the only lawful rite that can ever exist in the Roman Church. The Tridentine Rite is the Roman Rite. And just as it would be considered absolutely outrageous for anyone to try to impose a new rite [or even the Roman rite] on the Greek Church, likewise, it is an outrage for anyone to impose a new rite on the Roman Church.

Ironically, even the 1983 Code of Canon Law upholds the right and the duty of Catholics to adhere to their customary rites. As Roman Catholics, our customary rites are the Roman rites, the ceremonies of the Roman Rite. The Popes have professed and the Church has solemnly taught that this cannot be taken away from us. We may not defect from that rite and embrace a new rite without violating what has been taught as a doctrine of the faith in the Church down through the centuries. Quo Primum is entirely based on this teaching. It is an application of this teaching.

In general, the formulation defined by the Church is that we adhere to our own customary, received and approved rite. What Pope Pius V points out in Quo Primum, is that the rite in this Missal, this Roman Missal, is the received and approved rite of the Roman Church. Therefore, it is a particular application of the dogmatic teaching taught by the Council of Trent in Session 7 Canon 13 formulated in a different manner, on a different point, previously by the Council of Florence.

Thus, we cannot say that Quo Primum is merely a disciplinary decree. It is disciplinary, of course, it refers to discipline. But it is a disciplinary decree based on dogma. It is rooted in dogma and therefore, it has a much greater force than something merely disciplinary. We are not dealing with merely ecclesiastical laws because it is the application of Divine law as has been solemnly defined by the Church's infallible Magisterium.

Being fully aware of this, Pope St. Pius V did not shrink from saying "by our Apostolic authority . . . we order and declare . . . that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law." He declared solemnly and definitively that Quo Primum cannot ever be revoked or modified.

Why did he do this? Because it is an application of the Divine Law as defined by the Church regarding the Roman Rite specifically, the Roman Church specifically. So it is not merely disciplinary , it is a disciplinary decree rooted in the doctrine of the faith. There are other legal formulations used in other decrees saying "henceforth in perpetuity" but we are not dealing with something so simple as this. We are dealing with a very explicit pronouncement wherein he says, "by our Apostolic authority . . . we order and declare . . . that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law."

However, even if the Pope had never issued Quo Primum, the doctrine of the Church had been previously defined. The proper liturgy of the Roman Church is the Roman Rite. This is the faith. This is the teaching of the Church. So even if Quo Primum never existed and even if Pope Pius V had not codified the Missal, Catholics would still be bound their customary traditional rites, the so-called Tridentine Rite, and other similar variations of the same. This is the doctrine of the faith and it can never change.

    Father Paul Kramer further develops this thesis in his soon-to-be-released book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy. Catholic Family News will announce the availability of book when it is published,  this year it is hoped.


Footnotes:
1. See The Angelus, April 2001, p 16.
2. "Cardinal Stickler Confirms Tridentine Mass Never Forbidden,"  Vennari, Catholic Family News, reprint #22 for $1.75 US. The article is not archived.
 

Reprinted from the June 2001 Issue of Catholic Family News.
 

MAIL--------------------HOME-----------------BACK TO THE ROMAN MASS DOcuмENTS

www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/quo-primum.htm

Parentsfortruth,

You are denying a teaching of the Church.  You are denying the power of St. Peter's successors, the Popes, power to bind and to loosen.  

If you really thought you would be correct on this, you would look to a pre-Vatican II source to defend your view, rather than to the source you used.  

You will never find any source from an approved Catholic source to support your position because they do not exist.  What you will find, if you take the time, are sources from the theologians who say exactly what I am saying.  

As I said before, I hope you are just confused on this, and are not culpable.  

We might even go back earlier.

Pope St Sergius I (687-701) introduced the Syrian custom to sing the Agnus Dei.

And Pope Innocent III (1160-1216 AD) declared that the third Agnus Dei petition be changed to 'dona nobis pacem'.

These were considered "organic developments" in the Mass. This was before Quo Primum was promulgated as the Mass for All Time (called the "Tridentine Mass" but really was from the time of the Apostles).

Also, did you notice in the Canon of the Mass that all the saints mentioned are martyrs? (except for Mary, who is the Queen of Martyrs and actually went through Christ's death in her heart while He suffered for us?)

Pius IX agrees with me, Ambrose. When HE was asked to put Saint Joseph in the Canon, he said, "Who am I? I am only the Pope." So clearly, HE didn't believe HE had the authority to do that.

The reason I won't find a pre-vatican II source for my argument, is because NO ONE DARED TOUCH THE CANON before 1962.

So you're going to trust a pope who displayed the AUDACITY to call a council when none need to be called that caused disaster in the Church to touch something that even his predecessor Venerable Pius IX wouldn't DARE even touch? Someone who was found FACE DOWN in his grave, and the concilliar church calls "blessed?" You're going to go along with changes that occurred during a CRISIS when the Church teaches that you change NOTHING during a crisis, and go back to BEFORE the crisis occurred?

You're going to say that it was okay to totally destroy and mangle the Holy Week Rite that contained the MOST ANCIENT RITUALS IN THE CHURCH by someone who was EXILED? Someone who was a known Freemason? You're going to call that "discipline?" Sorry, I totally and completely disagree. That was not a revision, that was a DESTRUCTION.

parentsfortruth wrote:

Quote

Sorry, I totally and completely disagree.

If John XXIII was a pope, then his revisions came from the Church, and they are infallibly protected.  If he as not a pope then it did not come from the Church and had no protection.  

I have told you the truth.  I have told you what the Church teaches.  You do not have to believe me, but you need to hear the Church, which has spoken through it Sacred Tradition and through its theologians.  

I will leave off here, as you disagree with me, and I disagree with you, and we are at an impasse.

There is a question as to whether he was or not. If he was, we'll find out. So in the meantime, we should be going to the way it was BEFORE there was a crisis in the first place. We know (I hope you do realize) that the crisis started BEFORE Vatican II, and so, we should be going back to the way it was BEFORE, and that's what the Church has always said.

Quote from: Ambrose

parentsfortruth wrote:

Quote

Sorry, I totally and completely disagree.

If John XXIII was a pope, then his revisions came from the Church, and they are infallibly protected.  If he as not a pope then it did not come from the Church and had no protection.  

I have told you the truth.  I have told you what the Church teaches.  You do not have to believe me, but you need to hear the Church, which has spoken through it Sacred Tradition and through its theologians.  

I will leave off here, as you disagree with me, and I disagree with you, and we are at an impasse.

There is a question as to whether he was or not. If he was, we'll find out. So in the meantime, we should be going to the way it was BEFORE there was a crisis in the first place. We know (I hope you do realize) that the crisis started BEFORE Vatican II, and so, we should be going back to the way it was BEFORE, and that's what the Church has always said.

On this point we agree, there are questions about John XXIII.  For myself, I have looked into this over the years.  There is nothing ironclad to indicate that John XXIII was a heretic.  There is no definitive proof that he was a freemason, despite some allegations to that effect.  

He certainly had more liberal tendencies, and he was no Pius XII, but, there is no evidence to show that he would have supported the heresies and errors of Vatican II.  

I do not fault those that think that that John XXIII's involvement in the revolution, makes him sufficiently suspect to retreat to the safe ground of Pius XII.  The Church will eventually judge John XXIII.

But, part of this discussion focused on Pope Pius XII, a certain Pope who revised the Holy Week rites.  There would never be a reason to doubt the certain pontificate of Pius XII, and therefore not his liturgical laws.