Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: SimpleMan on June 04, 2025, 11:17:08 PM
-
Much of the argument for maintaining the Traditional Latin Rite of Mass rests upon the papal bull Quo primum, promulgated by Pope St Pius V in 1570. In this docuмent, as I am sure almost all here know, Pius V said that the missal must never be changed and remains in force forever.
Just for the sake of argument, is it possible that Pius exceeded his authority, in attempting to bind future Popes to his missal, and tying their hands, as it were, regarding any changes? I have never heard apologists for the Novus Ordo make this argument, but it is one that could be made, not saying that I am proposing this, just, as I said above, for the sake of argument. Is it possible that he did, indeed, go beyond his authority in binding future Popes, and that, for whatever reason, nobody ever "called his hand on it" prior to the Vatican II era?
Sadly, we do not have any contemporary sources who could have asked Pius, "let's get this straight now, Your Holiness, do you mean that future Popes can never change in any way (aside from the common-sense scenario of adding propers for newly canonized saints) the missal that you have promulgated, and if so, how can a purely disciplinary matter (which is what this seems to be), as opposed to one touching upon doctrine or dogma, be decreed for all time?".
Just saying.
-
Much of the argument for maintaining the Traditional Latin Rite of Mass rests upon the papal bull Quo primum, promulgated by Pope St Pius V in 1570. In this docuмent, as I am sure almost all here know, Pius V said that the missal must never be changed and remains in force forever.
Just for the sake of argument, is it possible that Pius exceeded his authority, in attempting to bind future Popes to his missal, and tying their hands, as it were, regarding any changes? I have never heard apologists for the Novus Ordo make this argument, but it is one that could be made, not saying that I am proposing this, just, as I said above, for the sake of argument. Is it possible that he did, indeed, go beyond his authority in binding future Popes, and that, for whatever reason, nobody ever "called his hand on it" prior to the Vatican II era?
Sadly, we do not have any contemporary sources who could have asked Pius, "let's get this straight now, Your Holiness, do you mean that future Popes can never change in any way (aside from the common-sense scenario of adding propers for newly canonized saints) the missal that you have promulgated, and if so, how can a purely disciplinary matter (which is what this seems to be), as opposed to one touching upon doctrine or dogma, be decreed for all time?".
Just saying.
Ultra vires, that's the term I was seeking. Anyone?
-
Just for the sake of argument, is it possible that Pius exceeded his authority, in attempting to bind future Popes to his missal, and tying their hands, as it were, regarding any changes? I have never heard apologists for the Novus Ordo make this argument, but it is one that could be made, not saying that I am proposing this, just, as I said above, for the sake of argument. Is it possible that he did, indeed, go beyond his authority in binding future Popes, and that, for whatever reason, nobody ever "called his hand on it" prior to the Vatican II era?
The NO apologists say that one pope's law cannot bind future popes, which is also the reason they end up giving for the new mass, after all, "Equals have no power over each other," as if that's even a reason for doing what has been done.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/approaching-doubtful-sacraments-and-canon-law-andor-catholic-moral-theology/msg650790/?topicseen#msg650790)
Snip from a previous post: (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/approaching-doubtful-sacraments-and-canon-law-andor-catholic-moral-theology/msg650790/?topicseen#msg650790)
Question: But the people say that the people make the contention that pope Paul VI had the right so therefore we must accept it.
Fr. Wathen: That of course is a central question. We deny that he had such a right. That exactly is the point. We have every reason to question whether the pope had the authority to introduce a brand new mass, introduce a new Rite of the liturgy of the Western Church. We believe that when one reads Quo Primum of St. Pius V, he can see clearly that it is altogether forbidden for his successors, any of his successors to go contrary to this law.
Here is a key question, whether a successor can override pope Pius V with regard to the establishment of the Rite of the Mass. It’s a key question.
It was never considered that the pope could go contrary to this ruling because Quo Primum was issued to protect the Mass. It was as strong of legislation as the pope could possibly impose. If we say that his successor is not bound by this legislation, we have to say that the Church has no way of protecting it’s own liturgy....
...Question: The Council of Trent Canon 6 says “if anyone says the Mass contains errors, therefore should be abrogated let them be anathema”. Would something like that hold any weight pertaining to what pope Paul VI did? In a way he was saying that it did contain errors therefore should be abrogated did he not?
Fr.I would not say that his changing the Rite of the Mass was a suggestion that there was fault in the old Mass, that canon simply states that the doctrine expressed by the prayers and the ritual of the traditional Mass are thoroughly Catholic, that everyone may have confidence that there is no doctrinal error expressed by this Rite. The matter of the new mass must be considered first of all why the new mass was introduced. Was it introduced because it was suggested there was some deficiency in the old mass, was it introduced for less cogent reasons? It was never suggested that there was some deficiency, it was suggested that there was room for improvement. ……no sufficient reason was ever given, and no one has a sufficient reason. The only reason they have is that one pope may override the rules and the laws of another. This is an error....
...Question: Fr., there's an old legal principle which says; "he who makes the law can change the law", would this also apply in the church? In other words, we had pope Paul VI making a change, did he not have a right to make this change and must not we, as Catholics, follow whatever change he authorizes?
Fr. Wathen:
I do not agree that he who makes the law may always abrogate it, especially if he who makes the law is doing nothing else but enunciating and particularizing a tradition.
When pope Pius V established the Mass, he was merely canonizing a tradition. He was fixing something and making it irrevocable and unchangeable after centuries of development. Pope Pius V, once he made this law, had no right to change it, simply because, that is an error. The pope's business is not to make and then to change, the pope's business is to preserve, to formulate, in order that there be a preservation of all that was established, even by the Apostles.
There was a period during the 60s in which changed began to be made in the traditional latin mass. We know now that these changes were conditional. Which is to say that they had the purpose of conditioning people for a situation which the liturgy would always be subject to change. The changes were of various sorts, the purpose however was not so much the changes themselves, but to educate the people to a totally new idea, an anti-traditional idea, that the liturgy henceforth would be subject to indefinite change - which is to say not only will the external ritual be patient of an infinite variety of changes, but the doctrine also, the beliefs which the ritual expresses will also be under constant revolution........
…… The Mass of the Roman Rite, there is only one, Pius V said that there could never be but one, and he had the authority to impose this for all time.
[People have the idea that] he (PPV) did not have the authority to do so, even to the extent of binding all his successors, this is to say that he, the pope, did not even know the limits of his own authority. This is to say that this pope attempted to do something which he had no authority to do. And we say well then if he did not have that authority, then his authority was limited. We say that if his authority is limited, then all his successors authority is limited also.
We say yes, the authority of the pope is limited, but it is not limited to establishing the liturgy of the Mass for all time, [rather] it is limited to where a successor cannot discard this Mass because of a whimsy or a deviation in Catholic belief, and there has to be a deviation in Catholic belief on the part of pope Paul VI who would introduce such a mass as what we have, the Novus Ordo Missae..."
-
As per introibo blog:
"No canonist or theologian ever taught that Quo Primum meant the Mass could never change.
In the very front of every pre-Vatican II Missale Romanum, after Quo Primum, is the decree cuм Sanctissimum of Pope Clement VIII (1604). Only 34 years after Quo Primum, changes were made.
Pope Pius XII and the Code of Canon Law would be in error for teaching that the Supreme Pontiff can "recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
However, they are not wrong because the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws, such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law."
So in other words, pope cannot bind future pope in disciplinary matters. Hope that helps. Short answer- no pope Pius V did not overstep his authority.
-
I think that St. Pius V recognized the basic principle of law that no equal can bind an equal, but I believe the intent was that it will remain in force continually ... unless altered or revoked by a future pope.
There's one sense in which positive law established by a pope ceases with his death, and that the next pope would have to re-affirm his laws / rules / regulations / commands upon his election for them to continue to have force. I think all this language does is to indicate that it remains in force unless explicitly revoked or altered. There are some cases where a Pope could legislate for the future, e.g. for the upcoming Conclave and where that legislation would remain in force even after his death. In many cases, since there's too much out there for a Pope to explicitly affirm, the Pope is considered to tacitly affirm anything which he does not revoke or alter, and I think that's all the QP language is doing here, affirming its continuity past the current papacy, i.e. the intention that it doesn't die with him. I'm sure someone could think of some laws that would make no sense once the current Pope dies (since it's very specific to something he's doing).
Now, the problem for sedeplenists is that Montini did in fact revoke / alter / amend it when he promulgated the NOM. Father Cekada points out the language at the end where it says that the promulgation of NOM trumps, supercedes, and replaces all prior contrary legislation (and that would include Quo Primum).
It's analogous perhaps to the language of "perpetual succession", which just means a continuity of the office from one occupier of the office to the next. Same here with Quo Primum, where it means that from one pope to the next, it'll remain in force ... until revoked.
-
As per introibo blog:
"No canonist or theologian ever taught that Quo Primum meant the Mass could never change.
In the very front of every pre-Vatican II Missale Romanum, after Quo Primum, is the decree cuм Sanctissimum of Pope Clement VIII (1604). Only 34 years after Quo Primum, changes were made.
Pope Pius XII and the Code of Canon Law would be in error for teaching that the Supreme Pontiff can "recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
However, they are not wrong because the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws, such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law."
So in other words, pope cannot bind future pope in disciplinary matters. Hope that helps. Short answer- no pope Pius V did not overstep his authority.
That post doesn't come close to answering the question. Just because future popes did not consider themselves bound by QP does not address why St. Pius V used language that might appear to bind his future successors, i.e. whether HE overstepped.
I think the answer is in my post above, where that (formulaic) language simply means that the legislation is meant to have force beyond his reign, after his death, etc. ... UNLESS revoked by future Popes ... vs. simply being specific to his papal reign.
-
People often argue that St Pius V *couldnt* bind future popes. Whether or not that’s true, is theoretical. In practice, his law still stands, as Benedict XVI admitted in his 2006 motu.
One could argue that the V2 popes had the power to overturn Quo Primum, but…they never did. So the question is irrelevant.
-
Now, the problem for sedeplenists is that Montini did in fact revoke / alter / amend it when he promulgated the NOM. Father Cekada points out the language at the end where it says that the promulgation of NOM trumps, supercedes, and replaces all prior contrary legislation (and that would include Quo Primum).
They are going to say that he did in "dialogue mode" :laugh1:, which means that it is a mere suggestion, even if the used the most formal and definitive terms that he could find. So much for logic.::)
-
Now, the problem for sedeplenists is that Montini did in fact revoke / alter / amend it when he promulgated the NOM. Father Cekada points out the language at the end where it says that the promulgation of NOM trumps, supercedes, and replaces all prior contrary legislation (and that would include Quo Primum).
Negative. Pope Paul VI in fact did *not* revoke / alter / amend it, nor does it somehow mystically trump, supersede, and replace the law of Quo Primum, regardless of what Fr. Cekada said....
"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite." - Pope Benedict XVI (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificuм.html)
-
Much of the argument for maintaining the Traditional Latin Rite of Mass rests upon the papal bull Quo primum, promulgated by Pope St Pius V in 1570. In this docuмent, as I am sure almost all here know, Pius V said that the missal must never be changed and remains in force forever.
.
Unfortunately this is a misconception, and it has plagued the traditional Catholic movement since the beginning.
Right after Vatican 2 and the imposition of the new Mass, a lot of Catholics correctly identified these things as contrary to the faith and rejected them. However, since these things seemed to come from the authority of the Church, they attempted to explain their rejection of these things through Catholic principles.
All of this is well and good, but unfortunately these good people came up with a lot of mistaken or erroneous principles to explain their heroic rejection of modernism and the new church. This was not really anybody's fault, since the situation was unprecedented and most people were just not sufficiently educated to know how to understand what was happening. Priests before Vatican 2 were not really prepared theologically for the crisis either.
It was only with time that people were able to do enough research to understand the situation in the Church better, and see as more time went on that the crisis was not simply a few mistaken judgment calls from an ignorant pope or two, but a complete (attempted) takeover and replacement of the Catholic Church by heretics intent on destroying the Faith. I say their takeover was only an attempt because the Church is indefectible and did in fact continue in the faithful who rejected the Vatican 2 church and its modernism, and continues in us here today who not only believe and practice the Faith of all time, but also reject the attacks against it coming from Vatican 2 and the modernist apostate fake hierarchy.
I preface my answer with all of this because I don't want to sound like I'm throwing anyone under the bus when I say the Quo Primum justification for rejecting the Novus Ordo and continuing to use the tridentine Mass is simply not correct. First of all it is not correct to say that a pope can make a law saying some liturgical norm must be used forever. Secondly it is not correct that St. Pius V even intended to do that anyway; when he said the tridentine missal must be used forever, he simply meant the law was permanent in that it had no expiration date. He was not saying no future pope could change what he had established. That would only be possible if it were a matter of dogmatic definition or irreformable teaching on faith or morals, which a iiturgical norm is not. Thirdly, it is not true to say that Paul VI did not promulgate the Novus Ordo, or did not tell anyone they had to use it. Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo missae in a similar way to how St. Pius V promulgated the tridentine Mass.
Fr. Cekada discussed all of these errors in some of his articles, one of the best of which directly addresses your questions (https://www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum/). Because yes, you are correct that this argument is problematic and should not be used.
So, to answer the question at the beginning of the thread as to whether St. Pius V exceeded his authority, the answer is of course not. It is only people now who misunderstand the nature of what he commanded and its binding force.
-
Negative. Pope Paul VI in fact did *not* revoke / alter / amend it ...
False. So you quote Ratzinger as your "authority" (while rejecting 99% of what he says). Montini clearly stated that the NOM abrogated anything before it.
Ratzinger was an agent whose job it was to re-absorb the Traditional Catholics (primarily SSPX) via the Motu and then paying some lip-service to the Tridentine Mass and Trad concerns as part of the tactic. Ganswein admitted as much.
-
Fr. Cekada discussed all of these errors in some of his articles, one of the best of which directly addresses your questions (https://www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum/). Because yes, you are correct that this argument is problematic and should not be used.
So, to answer the question at the beginning of the thread as to whether St. Pius V exceeded his authority, the answer is of course not. It is only people now who misunderstand the nature of what he commanded and its binding force.
He also shows elsewhere that in the docuмent where Montini promulgated the NOM, he has the same clause that appeared at the end of QP where it superceded and trumped the preceding legislation.
I do disagree with Fr. Cekada that the "forever" part was JUST "boilerplate". I think it had an actual concrete meaning ... where the pope intends to make it clear that the legislation wasn't issued in any a priori time-bound fashion. Some legislation says when it takes force and then when it remains in force til, or some legislation may be assumed to be the will of the pope and only makes sense while he's alive, etc.
So the intent there was that this legislation has force from NOW until ... [open-ended], and continues to remain in force even after this pope here or others die [until such a time as it's changed or revoked].
-
This also highlights the problems that arise when you don't give the real reason for something. This happens a lot in the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo church. They reject modernism and the errors of Vatican 2 and sometimes the new Mass as well, but they come up with absurd, convoluted legal arguments to justify it. An extreme example is the "body-double of Paul VI" argument, but other examples are the claims that Vatican 2 was only a pastoral council and can simply be ignored (both of which are false), or the claim that only ex cathedra pronouncements of popes must be accepted.
There are several problems with using these sorts of arguments. One of which is that they are easily refuted, after which the person saying them must be considered a heretic or schismatic by rejecting the teaching of what people think is the Church on improper grounds. Secondly, they are spreading theological error by these claims, so that people who find them convincing come away with gallican views that nearly deny the authority of the Church. Thirdly, when people find out they are absurd, they sometimes end up going back to the new church because they see that the new church really won the argument in a way.
-
This also highlights the problems that arise when you don't give the real reason for something. This happens a lot in the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo church. They reject modernism and the errors of Vatican 2 and sometimes the new Mass as well, but they come up with absurd, convoluted legal arguments to justify it. An extreme example is the "body-double of Paul VI" argument, but other examples are the claims that Vatican 2 was only a pastoral council and can simply be ignored (both of which are false), or the claim that only ex cathedra pronouncements of popes must be accepted.
There are several problems with using these sorts of arguments. One of which is that they are easily refuted, after which the person saying them must be considered a heretic or schismatic by rejecting the teaching of what people think is the Church on improper grounds. Secondly, they are spreading theological error by these claims, so that people who find them convincing come away with gallican views that nearly deny the authority of the Church. Thirdly, when people find out they are absurd, they sometimes end up going back to the new church because they see that the new church really won the argument in a way.
And this is why I raised the question in the first place. Simply relying upon Quo primum to justify retaining the TLM is a fairly weak argument, and we risk losing credibility if we lean too heavily upon it. It is not totally without worth, but it needs to be enhanced by stronger and better arguments.
The essential historicity and continuity of the TLM with the Roman Rite of St Gregory the Great, and even before that, is IMO a far better argument. The NOM departs dramatically from the Gregorian/Pian missal, and the "bulldozer" approach it took to hitherto intact prayers is something unprecedented in the history of the Church. Organic development it wasn't.
-
And this is why I raised the question in the first place. Simply relying upon Quo primum to justify retaining the TLM is a fairly weak argument, and we risk losing credibility if we lean too heavily upon it. It is not totally without worth, but it needs to be enhanced by stronger and better arguments.
The essential historicity and continuity of the TLM with the Roman Rite of St Gregory the Great, and even before that, is IMO a far better argument. The NOM departs dramatically from the Gregorian/Pian missal, and the "bulldozer" approach it took to hitherto intact prayers is something unprecedented in the history of the Church. Organic development it wasn't.
.
The correct answer, in my opinion, is that the Novus Ordo contradicts the Faith and that is the reason it cannot be used. Therefore we simply continue to use the missal of St. Pius V, which is still in force.
That's kind of an oversimplification, but that's the basic idea.
-
Novus Ordo Watch explained this in great detail.
https://novusordowatch.org/2024/07/pope-pius5-quo-primum-tridentine-mass-in-perpetuity/
They show how in perpetuity is used in many other papal docuмents.
In conclusion, it doesn't mean what Trads think it means.
-
False. So you quote Ratzinger as your "authority" (while rejecting 99% of what he says). Montini clearly stated that the NOM abrogated anything before it.
Ratzinger was an agent whose job it was to re-absorb the Traditional Catholics (primarily SSPX) via the Motu and then paying some lip-service to the Tridentine Mass and Trad concerns as part of the tactic. Ganswein admitted as much.
Pope Benedict XVI was the supreme authority, that you do not accept that fact is irrelevant. That he essentially stated QP was still in force is true, it was never abrogated because it can never be abrogated - which is why pope Paul VI did not abrogate it. It's not complicated.
-
I preface my answer with all of this because I don't want to sound like I'm throwing anyone under the bus when I say the Quo Primum justification for rejecting the Novus Ordo and continuing to use the tridentine Mass is simply not correct. First of all it is not correct to say that a pope can make a law saying some liturgical norm must be used forever. Secondly it is not correct that St. Pius V even intended to do that anyway; when he said the tridentine missal must be used forever, he simply meant the law was permanent in that it had no expiration date. He was not saying no future pope could change what he had established. That would only be possible if it were a matter of dogmatic definition or irreformable teaching on faith or morals, which a iiturgical norm is not. Thirdly, it is not true to say that Paul VI did not promulgate the Novus Ordo, or did not tell anyone they had to use it. Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo missae in a similar way to how St. Pius V promulgated the tridentine Mass.
Fr. Cekada discussed all of these errors in some of his articles, one of the best of which directly addresses your questions (https://www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum/). Because yes, you are correct that this argument is problematic and should not be used.
So, to answer the question at the beginning of the thread as to whether St. Pius V exceeded his authority, the answer is of course not. It is only people now who misunderstand the nature of what he commanded and its binding force.
You are reducing the Church's Liturgy to "some liturgical norm," this is what they did at V2.
It was at the direction of the Sacred Council of Trent (which don't forget, was at a time when the Mass, Sacraments, and actually the whole Church was under attack by Luther and the other heretics) that PPV set about the "preservation of a pure liturgy," which is the foundation of, and what the law of QP is all about.
The preservation of *all* things pertaining to our holy religion, including the Church's liturgy, is the duty of popes, it's their main job, it's what they are supposed to do one after the other in succession, in perpetuity. So the law of Quo Primum was established to insure the preservation of the Mass until the end of time under penalty of "the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
This law can only always remain in effect and can never be abrogated because of what it is protecting.
-
False. So you quote Ratzinger as your "authority" (while rejecting 99% of what he says). Montini clearly stated that the NOM abrogated anything before it.
Ratzinger was an agent whose job it was to re-absorb the Traditional Catholics (primarily SSPX) via the Motu and then paying some lip-service to the Tridentine Mass and Trad concerns as part of the tactic. Ganswein admitted as much.
Montini can say whatever. What matters is what the law says. Ones intent is irrelevant if the law doesn’t spell out your intent. If Montini had wanted to get rid of Quo Primum, then he needed to be much, much clearer in his law.
JP2 had a commission study the matter (because it wasn’t clear) and the commission said QP wasn’t abrogated. Then Benedict confirmed such in 2006.
The Modernists love to write ambiguous stuff and claim it means something else. Montini was using the same tactic.
-
Montini can say whatever. What matters is what the law says. Ones intent is irrelevant if the law doesn’t spell out your intent. If Montini had wanted to get rid of Quo Primum, then he needed to be much, much clearer in his law.
Why would a Traditional Catholic even use this argument? What Montini WANTED was for everyone to accept Vatican II, use the NOM, etc. ... and it's why he suspended SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre.
Regardless, as we don't care ... the closing lines of Montini's promulgation of NOM Father Cekada pointed out was exactly how QP ended, by superceding / replacing all legislation. That does spell out intent. He didn't have to spell out Quo Primum by name, since there could be something else out there that he missed. This way he doesn't have to name them all.
But this hand-wriging about legal technicalities. It's clear that Montini and all the V2 papal claimants have insisted upon everyone using the NOM.
This reminds me of the nonsense about Ratzinger's ministerium vs. munus ... where specific terms are required to spell out your intention. Canon Law lays down no such requirements. He could have said, in the vernacular, "I'm doing being pope. See ya, guys. Find someone else." ... and that's a valid resignation. Law only says he has to make it reasonably clear to those around him.
Same thing here, where it's very obvious that Montini intended to replace Tridentine Mass with his concoction. Nobody doubts that. And IF you wanted to doubt it, just check with the Holy Office.
-
Novus Ordo Watch explained this in great detail.
https://novusordowatch.org/2024/07/pope-pius5-quo-primum-tridentine-mass-in-perpetuity/
They show how in perpetuity is used in many other papal docuмents.
In conclusion, it doesn't mean what Trads think it means.
Right ... this is what I said above also, where it just means that there's no end date. Legislation often explicitly adds a START date, and sometimes also has an END DATE. This expression simply means that there's no END DATE, including no implicit end date with the death of the current pope.
As per the link above ...
Indeed, it turns out that in such papal legislation, the phrase “in perpetuity” simply means that the law being imposed has no automatic “expiration date”, so to speak — it does not mean that it can never be changed or rescinded by the competent authority, that is, by another (or even the same) Pope. In the case of Quo Primum, the “in perpetuity” clause quite simply means that the Apostolic Constitution remains in effect indefinitely, that is, until a future Pope changes it. In other words, it is not simply a temporary edict but a real, permanent law for the entire Church.
-
https://traditionalmass.org/images/articles/P6Illegally.pdf
Paul VI Revokes Quo Primum
Father Laisney trots out yet another old canard: the tale that Paul VI did not abrogate (revoke) St. Pius V’s Bull Quo Primum. Advocates of this position sometimes cite a passage in the Code which states that “a more recent law given by competent authority, abrogates a former law, if it expressly orders abrogation.” Paul VI, the argument goes, did not mention Quo Primum by name, so he did not expressly abrogate it. Quo Primum, then, never lost its force, and we are all still free to celebrate the old Mass.
But proponents of this notion are engaging in wishful thinking. Expressly, in the canon quoted above, does not just mean “by name.” A legislator may “expressly” revoke a law in another way — and this is what occurred here, when Paul VI, after he gave his volumus to the New Mass, added the following clause: “...notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances of Our Predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those worthy of special mention and amendment.” This clause expressly abrogates Quo Primum.
First, the Bull Quo Primum falls into the category of the most solemn type of pontifical legal Act — a Papal or Apostolic Constitution. And in the passage quoted from Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution, he specifically revokes the “Apostolic Constitutions” of his predecessors. Second, in order to revoke a law expressly, a pope is not required to mention it by name. Express revocation also takes place, says the canonist Cicognani, if the legislator inserts “abrogatory or derogatory clauses, as is common in decrees, rescripts, and other pontifical acts: notwithstanding anything to the contrary, notwithstanding in any respect anything to the contrary, though worthy of special mention.”
Paul VI, in other words, used the exact type of language required to expressly revoke a prior law. And in so doing, Paul VI again used some of the same phrases St. Pius V employed in Quo Primum to revoke liturgical laws of his predecessors: “Notwithstanding preceding Apostolic constitutions and ordinances… and whatever laws and customs there be to the contrary.” Again, if this language worked in 1570, it also worked in 1969. In light of all the foregoing, one cannot continue to promote the myth that Paul VI’s legislation did not expressly abrogate Quo Primum.
-
You are reducing the Church's Liturgy to "some liturgical norm," this is what they did at V2.
It was at the direction of the Sacred Council of Trent (which don't forget, was at a time when the Mass, Sacraments, and actually the whole Church was under attack by Luther and the other heretics) that PPV set about the "preservation of a pure liturgy," which is the foundation of, and what the law of QP is all about.
The preservation of *all* things pertaining to our holy religion, including the Church's liturgy, is the duty of popes, it's their main job, it's what they are supposed to do one after the other in succession, in perpetuity. So the law of Quo Primum was established to insure the preservation of the Mass until the end of time under penalty of "the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
This law can only always remain in effect and can never be abrogated because of what it is protecting.
.
Yes and no. Yes, the doctrine involved in the rite of the Mass, which was being attacked by protestants in the time of St. Pius V, is perpetual and unchangeable. No, any particular rite of Mass is not unchangeable. In fact, the tridentine Mass was changed several times, with minor additions added to it over the centuries. It is not something that goes back to the Apostles unchanged, and it is not a matter of dogma.
The problem with the new Mass is not that it is a new missal, as the Quo Primum argument asserts. The problem is that it contains elements that contradict Catholic doctrine on the Mass, and is therefore heretical.
So yes, we must reject the Novus Ordo, but not because it is a new missal. We must reject it because it contradicts Catholic dogma.
-
https://riposte-catholique.fr/archives/203030
Google translation.
"...
The name of Brother Michael Ghislieri—Pius V—graces the frontispiece of the Roman Missal and Breviary because it was under his authority that the revision of the liturgical books, expressly reserved for the Holy See by the Council of Trent, was completed. In addition to these merits in the field of liturgy, Saint Pius V has the glory of having been the Pope of the reform that, for two centuries already, the Pontiffs, his predecessors, the councils, a great number of bishops, and saints of that complex period commonly called the Renaissance, had been vainly calling it.
Saint Pius V is therefore the Pope of ecclesiastical reform; not in the sense that he was the first to desire and inaugurate it, since, when he ascended the throne of Saint Peter, the Council of Trent had already been completed for some time. But he was the Pope of reform in that, by his authority and example, he definitively set the Roman Curia and the entire episcopate on the path to that salutary revival of the ecclesiastical spirit, which many of his predecessors, while desiring it in their hearts, had been unable to sustain for lack of courage and constancy.
It is surprising that Saint Pius V, from a modest family and a poor Dominican friar, was able to rise so high for the good of the Church. But he was a saint, and the instruments of his power were the pursuit of the glory of God alone and assiduous prayer. Above all, through prayer, he triumphed over the insolence of the Turks and sanctified the people entrusted to his care.
*****
Can we acknowledge that St. Piux V was not doing his will, but in fact was accomplishing the directives of the Council of Trent?. That's a very good start. Then, over the centuries the Church followed Quo Primum. Sure St Pius X modified the missal, but Fr. Hesse says that St Pius X explained the changes at the beginning of his missal, thereby assuring everyone that the Mass was not impacted. If the Entire Roman Church honored and followed QPrimum, looks like it had all the requirements that such an authority would have needed.
Then along comes Vatican II, and all gets " relativized", doing the devil's work...confusion ad nauseam.
God commands the TRUTH. God doesn't change.
The Mass is part of the "Lex orandi , lex credendi". The Truth cannot change so St. Pius V did well to secure the Tridentine rite. In 1568 AD , he was very strict in "Quod a Nobis" , so it was a TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY...Imo
St Pius V, pray for us+
-
Yes and no. Yes, the doctrine involved in the rite of the Mass, which was being attacked by protestants in the time of St. Pius V, is perpetual and unchangeable. No, any particular rite of Mass is not unchangeable. In fact, the tridentine Mass was changed several times, with minor additions added to it over the centuries. It is not something that goes back to the Apostles unchanged, and it is not a matter of dogma.
The problem with the new Mass is not that it is a new missal, as the Quo Primum argument asserts. The problem is that it contains elements that contradict Catholic doctrine on the Mass, and is therefore heretical.
So yes, we must reject the Novus Ordo, but not because it is a new missal. We must reject it because it contradicts Catholic dogma.
Very true, we reject it for what it is - no matter who wants us to embrace it.
Yet, the very reason QP exists, is two fold, 1) to preserve the Mass of the Roman Rite. 2) That for the celebration of the Mass in the Roman Rite, only that Mass was to be celebrated in perpetuity without any fear of censure or penalty etc,.
It remains the Law and cannot be abrogated because it says quite clearly: "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..."
Where he says "No one whosoever" includes the pope, where he says "This present docuмent," he is referring to the Law of Quo Primum that cannot be revoked, and on that account preserves the Mass of the Roman Rite.
He most certainly intended to bind all future popes, and all future popes until PPVI did bind themselves to this law - why wouldn't they? It's part of their duty to preserve the Roman Liturgy.
-
Why would a Traditional Catholic even use this argument? What Montini WANTED was for everyone to accept Vatican II, use the NOM, etc. ... and it's why he suspended SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre.
Regardless, as we don't care ... the closing lines of Montini's promulgation of NOM Father Cekada pointed out was exactly how QP ended, by superceding / replacing all legislation. That does spell out intent. He didn't have to spell out Quo Primum by name, since there could be something else out there that he missed. This way he doesn't have to name them all.
But this hand-wriging about legal technicalities. It's clear that Montini and all the V2 papal claimants have insisted upon everyone using the NOM.
This reminds me of the nonsense about Ratzinger's ministerium vs. munus ... where specific terms are required to spell out your intention. Canon Law lays down no such requirements. He could have said, in the vernacular, "I'm doing being pope. See ya, guys. Find someone else." ... and that's a valid resignation. Law only says he has to make it reasonably clear to those around him.
Same thing here, where it's very obvious that Montini intended to replace Tridentine Mass with his concoction. Nobody doubts that. And IF you wanted to doubt it, just check with the Holy Office.
You lost me at “Fr Cekeda said…”. God rest his soul, but everything he did was agenda driven. I trust 0% of anything he wrote. He’s a horrible theologian and a worse lawyer.
-
Very true, we reject it for what it is - no matter who wants us to embrace it.
Yet, the very reason QP exists, is two fold, 1) to preserve the Mass of the Roman Rite. 2) That for the celebration of the Mass in the Roman Rite, only that Mass was to be celebrated in perpetuity without any fear of censure or penalty etc,.
It remains the Law and cannot be abrogated because it says quite clearly: "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..."
Where he says "No one whosoever" includes the pope, where he says "This present docuмent," he is referring to the Law of Quo Primum that cannot be revoked, and on that account preserves the Mass of the Roman Rite.
He most certainly intended to bind all future popes, and all future popes until PPVI did bind themselves to this law - why wouldn't they? It's part of their duty to preserve the Roman Liturgy.
.
First of all, I'm curious why you think Paul VI was able to violate Quo Primum if you think Paul VI was a valid pope?
A pope cannot bind another pope in the future with a law. This is because only a superior can bind someone with legislation, and one pope is not the superior of another -- they all have equal authority.
This is not to be confused with a doctrinal definition. When a pope teaches doctrine, it is not his own teaching that he is giving, but God's teaching. That is why one pope cannot reverse a dogmatic definition or irreformable teaching of a previous pope -- because it was really God that taught it through the pope.
This is different from legislation. If a pope makes a law, the Church has to obey it, but it is not something revealed by God. Another pope can change it.
With regard to the Mass, the Council of Trent gave numerous teachings on the nature of the Mass, all of which are irreformable. No pope can ever reverse the canons of the Council of Trent. And the Novus Ordo violates many of these canons, which is why we rightly reject it.
It is a mistake to simply reject the Novus Ordo because it violates some liturgical law of a previous pope. The correct reason to reject it is because it violates dogmatic teachings. That is why the Quo Primum argument is wrong. Quo Primum is simply a liturgical norm. The Novus Ordo is evil because it violates the Council of Trent, not because it violates Quo Primum.
-
First of all, I'm curious why you think Paul VI was able to violate Quo Primum if you think Paul VI was a valid pope?
He (and all all his successors so far) was able to violate it because outside of a sense of duty and care for the Church, there was nothing to stop him.
A pope cannot bind another pope in the future with a law. This is because only a superior can bind someone with legislation, and one pope is not the superior of another -- they all have equal authority.
This is not to be confused with a doctrinal definition. When a pope teaches doctrine, it is not his own teaching that he is giving, but God's teaching. That is why one pope cannot reverse a dogmatic definition or irreformable teaching of a previous pope -- because it was really God that taught it through the pope.
This is different from legislation. If a pope makes a law, the Church has to obey it, but it is not something revealed by God. Another pope can change it.
Popes most certainly can bind another pope with a law. I think it was Pope Gregory I who changed the Sabbath Day from Saturday to Sunday, since then the law to keep holy the Sabbath Day means to keep Sunday holy - another pope cannot change it because even popes are bound to this law, which btw is also a non-doctrinal definition. This same principle applies to the Mass. We can ask, why would a pope want to change the Sabbath Day from Sunday to another day? Same as we can ask why would a pope want to change the Liturgy of the Roman Rite?
I think that the argument arises because people do not understand what the Liturgy is or where it came from - which it came from from Christ and the Apostles. Yes, certain ceremonies and rubrics etc. were added and/or refined along the way, but the mass of PPV is the way God wants to be worshiped in His Church in perpetuity, He certainly never willed it to be replaced with the thing they have now.
Actually, QP is really speaking strictly to future popes and hierarchy, and they SHOULD use it as their aid in preserving the Roman Liturgy and against any changes to it. If there is an argument, it's that PPV felt the need to make the law at all. Why did he make the law and mandate that it (and therefore the Mass), remain in force in perpetuity at all if he didn't care that any future pope i.e. "anyone whosoever" can change it?
-
It is a mistake to simply reject the Novus Ordo because it violates some liturgical law of a previous pope. The correct reason to reject it is because it violates dogmatic teachings. That is why the Quo Primum argument is wrong. Quo Primum is simply a liturgical norm. The Novus Ordo is evil because it violates the Council of Trent, not because it violates Quo Primum.
QP was both a liturgical and doctrinal law. St Pius V said he was codifying the liturgy (legal law) because this Latin rite was the essential rite going back to Pope Gregory the Great (ie doctrinal reasons). Prior to pope Gregory, the Latin rite was a fractured rite because of all the persecutions and lack of uniformity. Gregory codified it the first time.
-
Sure St Pius X modified the missal, but Fr. Hesse says that St Pius X explained the changes at the beginning of his missal...
St. Pius X OBLITERATED the Roman Psalter that dated back to the Patristic period. What he did was within the powers of the Roman Pontiff as dogmatised by the First Vatican Council. He also enjoyed the juridical authority to do so by the same Council. However, did he have a moral right to do this? Some say "yes"; others say "no". What is important to understand is that this was a prudential decision of the Roman Pontiff that could be changed by his successors. Sarto's changes did not affect the Benedictine Psalter or a few other Psalters used by religious orders, nor the Psalter of the Eastern Churches. There is now a movement in some quarters by those bound to return to the historic Roman Psalter even though it is much more burdensome than the Psalter as rearranged by Sarto. This is being promoted through an argument of Tradition.
None of this in any way affects Sarto's sanctity!
Sarto's Psalter was replaced in the Novus Ordo by a 4-week Psalter that makes the praying of the Office more like praying litugical minutes rather than liturgical hours. :facepalm:
-
Why would a Traditional Catholic even use this argument? What Montini WANTED was for everyone to accept Vatican II, use the NOM, etc. ... and it's why he suspended SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre.
Regardless, as we don't care ... the closing lines of Montini's promulgation of NOM Father Cekada pointed out was exactly how QP ended, by superceding / replacing all legislation. That does spell out intent. He didn't have to spell out Quo Primum by name, since there could be something else out there that he missed. This way he doesn't have to name them all.
But this hand-wriging about legal technicalities. It's clear that Montini and all the V2 papal claimants have insisted upon everyone using the NOM.
This reminds me of the nonsense about Ratzinger's ministerium vs. munus ... where specific terms are required to spell out your intention. Canon Law lays down no such requirements. He could have said, in the vernacular, "I'm doing being pope. See ya, guys. Find someone else." ... and that's a valid resignation. Law only says he has to make it reasonably clear to those around him.
Same thing here, where it's very obvious that Montini intended to replace Tridentine Mass with his concoction. Nobody doubts that. And IF you wanted to doubt it, just check with the Holy Office.
Let’s analyze the “cui bono?” Of it all.
1. Did Paul 6 have a benefit to lying that the old rite was abolished? Of course. He had every reason to lie that Quo Primum was over.
But…had QP really been outlawed and the old rite abolished then why has new-Rome (for decades) not formally declared the sspx as schismatic? Because if QP is gone, then the entire Trad movement is schismatic. They could’ve issued a blanket excommunication on every Trad to force compliance with V2.
In fact, the opposite happened. New Rome had to admit that Trads are “not in full communion” (a made up threat/label) in order to explain how/why a valid/schismatic/legal group of Catholics could just ignore V2/new mass. And their explanation for why Trads aren’t “regularized” has never made sense.
If QP was gone, the new-Rome would t have to jump through all these hoops.
2. Fr Cekada had every reason to say that QP is gone, because he is a dogmatic sede who wants to argue That non-sede-Trads “have to follow their heretic pope”. He’s always been on the warpath against +ABL/sspx, so his illogic arguments are consistent with his views.
3. If QP was over, why did Benedict say it wasn’t? Isn’t there MORE benefit if Benedict could say, “Quo Primum is over, but I’ll bring the Latin mass back.” But he said the exact opposite. He undercut his own arguments on the new mass by saying that QP is “always allowed.” Hence, he indirectly admitted that the new mass is optional. There is 0% benefit for him or new-Rome, in admitting this.
-
Answer to thread title question:— Centuries after a the words of a canonized Pope and Saint, don’t you think other holy popes and saints, like Pius X would have spoken out?
-
Papal letter Ex Quo
Benedict XIV 1756
",,,
Accordingly the Roman Pontiffs have often had to see to it that Missals, Rituals, Breviaries, and Martyrologies were newly issued in improved editions after appropriate corrections."..
******
"...It is well known that the Church has no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments."
Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter EX QUO,
December 26, 1910
-
For those that falsely claim that Montini did not abrogate the TLM:
If Montini was pope, he 100% had right to do this. Good thing is that he was not the pope.
…[T]here are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, willed by Christ. Discredit is cast upon the authority of the Church in the name of a Tradition, to which respect is professed only materially and verbally. The faithful are drawn away from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter and to their rightful Bishops; today’s authority is rejected in the name of yesterday’s. And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a Prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.
It is so painful to take note of this; but how can we not see in such an attitude—whatever may be these people’s intentions—the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church?
For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly! It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Is it for this group [=Lefebvrists], not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith? As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15 ff.), and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith.
And this is all the more serious, in particular, when division is introduced precisely where congregavit nos in unum Christi amor [the love of Christ has gathered us into one], in the Liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by the refusing of obedience to the norms laid down in the liturgical sphere. It is in the name of Tradition that we ask all our sons and daughters, all the Catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervor the renewed liturgy. The adoption of the new Ordo Missae [order of the Mass] is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with the authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine popolo [without people attending]. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent.
With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees. Any initiative which tries to obstruct them cannot claim the prerogative of rendering a service to the Church; in fact it causes the Church serious damage.
Various times, directly and through our collaborators and other friendly persons, we have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behaviour, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behaviour and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.
It is with profound sadness but with paternal hope that we once more turn to this confrère of ours, to his collaborators and to those who have let themselves be carried away by them. Oh, certainly, we believe that many of these faithful—at least in the beginning—were in good faith: we also understand their sentimental attachment to habitual forms of worship or of discipline that for a long time had been for them a spiritual support and in which they had found spiritual sustenance. But we are confident that they will reflect with serenity, without closed minds, and they will admit that they can find today the support and sustenance that they are seeking in the renewed forms that the Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council and we ourself have decreed as being necessary for the good of the Church, her progress in the modern world, and her unity. We therefore exhort yet once again all these brethren and sons and daughters of ours; we beseech them to become aware of the profound wounds that they otherwise cause to the Church, and we invite them again to reflect on Christ’s serious warnings about the unity of the Church (cf. Jn 17:21 ff) and on the obedience that is due to the lawful Pastor placed by him over the universal flock, as a sign of the obedience due to the Father and to the Son (cf. Lk 10:16). We await them with an open heart, with arms ready to embrace them; may they know how to rediscover in humility and edification, to the joy of the whole People of God, the way of unity and of love!
(Antipope Paul VI, Allocution to the Consistory, May 24, 1976; Translation from L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976.
-
For those that falsely claim that Montini did not abrogate the TLM:
If Montini was pope, he 100% had right to do this. Good thing is that he was not the pope.
…[T]here are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, willed by Christ. Discredit is cast upon the authority of the Church in the name of a Tradition, to which respect is professed only materially and verbally. The faithful are drawn away from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter and to their rightful Bishops; today’s authority is rejected in the name of yesterday’s. And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a Prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.
It is so painful to take note of this; but how can we not see in such an attitude—whatever may be these people’s intentions—the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church?
For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly! It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Is it for this group [=Lefebvrists], not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith? As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15 ff.), and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith.
And this is all the more serious, in particular, when division is introduced precisely where congregavit nos in unum Christi amor [the love of Christ has gathered us into one], in the Liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by the refusing of obedience to the norms laid down in the liturgical sphere. It is in the name of Tradition that we ask all our sons and daughters, all the Catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervor the renewed liturgy. The adoption of the new Ordo Missae [order of the Mass] is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with the authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine popolo [without people attending]. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent.
With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees. Any initiative which tries to obstruct them cannot claim the prerogative of rendering a service to the Church; in fact it causes the Church serious damage.
Various times, directly and through our collaborators and other friendly persons, we have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behaviour, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behaviour and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.
It is with profound sadness but with paternal hope that we once more turn to this confrère of ours, to his collaborators and to those who have let themselves be carried away by them. Oh, certainly, we believe that many of these faithful—at least in the beginning—were in good faith: we also understand their sentimental attachment to habitual forms of worship or of discipline that for a long time had been for them a spiritual support and in which they had found spiritual sustenance. But we are confident that they will reflect with serenity, without closed minds, and they will admit that they can find today the support and sustenance that they are seeking in the renewed forms that the Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council and we ourself have decreed as being necessary for the good of the Church, her progress in the modern world, and her unity. We therefore exhort yet once again all these brethren and sons and daughters of ours; we beseech them to become aware of the profound wounds that they otherwise cause to the Church, and we invite them again to reflect on Christ’s serious warnings about the unity of the Church (cf. Jn 17:21 ff) and on the obedience that is due to the lawful Pastor placed by him over the universal flock, as a sign of the obedience due to the Father and to the Son (cf. Lk 10:16). We await them with an open heart, with arms ready to embrace them; may they know how to rediscover in humility and edification, to the joy of the whole People of God, the way of unity and of love!
(Antipope Paul VI, Allocution to the Consistory, May 24, 1976; Translation from L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976.
The missal of St Pius V simply codified the NON-ESSENTIAL aspects of the liturgy. The new mass changes both non-essential and ESSENTIAL aspects. The 2 papal acts are incomparable.
-
For those that falsely claim that Montini did not abrogate the TLM:
If Montini was pope, he 100% had right to do this. Good thing is that he was not the pope.
…[T]here are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, willed by Christ. Discredit is cast upon the authority of the Church in the name of a Tradition, to which respect is professed only materially and verbally. The faithful are drawn away from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter and to their rightful Bishops; today’s authority is rejected in the name of yesterday’s. And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a Prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect....
It would definitely be TLDR to address all of the errors in this Allocution, suffice to post what Pope Pius IX said in Qui Pluribus:
(https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quiplu.htm)
"Whoever resists authority resists the ordering made by God Himself, consequently achieving his own condemnation; disobeying authority is always sinful except when an order is given which is opposed to the laws of God and the Church."
-
If Montini was pope, he 100% had right to do this. Good thing is that he was not the pope.
Right ... good thing that he was not. Well, either that or he was tied up in a dungeon and replaced by a big-eared / crooked-nosed double. :laugh1: