I have a concern/question

[drewmeister2]

In Quo Primum, it says this:

"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 document 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. " This can be found on paragraph 7 of this site: www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm.

This, as I understand it, was written in the 1500's. If we were instructed not to use anything other than the Tridentine Mass, then why are we allowed to use the Novus Ordo?

I need your help in understanding this. Thank you so much!

[popestpiusx]

It is well within the rights of a Pope to alter or 'reform' the liturgy, though, as the former Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, the Mass is not the Pope's playtoy that he can do whatever he wants to it. He is the custodian of the Mass, not its author or creator. So while he retains the juridical right to reform the Mass, morally, he is kept within certain bounds as to what is permissable. The question, then, is how far can that go? Clearly Pope St. Pius V was not binding every priest for all time to say the Tridentine Mass (he even makes exceptions in the document you quoted), nor was he attempting to bind every future Pope. To say otherwise is to misconstrue his words.

Edited May 5, 2005 by popestpiusx

[popestpiusx]

One more thing,

There are a number of traditionalists who attempt to use Quo Primum as the end all of the argument (much to my annoyance). This displays a gross lack of historical knowledge. The discussion/criticism on/of the various aspects of the Novus Ordo must be done on their own merit. At most, given that Quo Primum was never abrogated, the document provides any Latin Rite priest with the relative right to say the Tridentine Mass. It cannot be used, in my opinion, to critique the Novus Ordo. As I said, that must be done on its own terms, for reasons I'm not getting into right now. Perhaps another time.

[Cam42]

[quote name='drewmeister2' date='May 4 2005, 11:36 PM'] In Quo Primum, it says this:

"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 document 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. " This can be found on paragraph 7 of this site: www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm.

This, as I understand it, was written in the 1500's. If we were instructed not to use anything other than the Tridentine Mass, then why are we allowed to use the Novus Ordo?

I need your help in understanding this. Thank you so much! [/quote]
There are a couple of things that we have to remember about Quo Primum. First, Quo Primum was a reform. Secondly, there were reforms after Quo Primum and before Sacrsancutum Concilium.

I have to agree with popest on this one....but then again, it was a disciplinary action and not a matter of faith and morals. So while at the time that Quo Primum was written, St. Pius V was well within his rights, the times changed and so did the discipline. There was a need for the reform, but then again, apparently there was a need for reform in [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/314"]Cum Sanctissimum [/url] and [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/403"]Si Quid Est[/url]. Those were documents of reform in the 1600s. It is interesting that these papal documents are so often overlooked.

Hmmmm.....

Cam

[argent_paladin]

Also, the fact that other liturgical rites were not supressed shows that the Roman rite was not the only approved rite. The Dominican, Franciscan, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc rites were freely performed. In fact, Pius V was a Dominican. So, obviously it would be incorrect to interpret Quo Primum as banning all other forms of liturgy (they fall under the 200 years of custom exception). And once you allow for those acceptions, then the argument that the Tridentine alone is valid collapses.

[cmotherofpirl]

Yes the liturgy was reformed within 40 years of Quo Primum.

[Aloysius]

lol... popest?

[popestpiusx]

The primary complaint of any traditionalist worth the name is not that the liturgy was reformed (for the reasons stated above), but the way it was reformed. Vat. II demanded that the reform be organic. Cardinal Ratzinger has written on the subject numerous times and concludes that that is not what happen. Thats the beef. Not 'reform' itself, but 'THIS' reform.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 5 2005, 01:15 PM'] lol... popest? [/quote]
What?

[Aloysius]

I thought it was funny that Cam called you "popest" like, "the most popish of them all" or something.

:ph34r: nevermind

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]What about the language in Quo Primum that says it is to apply “henceforth, now, and forever” and that “this present document cannot be revoked or modified”? In perpetuity means that they are to last indefinitely, that no specific date or time is set in advance when this will automatically lapse; Thus it will remain in force until subsequently modified by legitimate authority. That legitimate authority is in fact future popes. For example, Clement XIV wrote Dominus ac Redemptor in 1773 which suppressed the Society of Jesus, and he declared that this measure should be “perpetuo validas”; but this in no way prevented his successor Pius VII from reestablishing the Society of Jesus anyway in Sollicitudo Omnium of August 7, 1814. The mere use of the term perpetual did not mean that a subsequent Pope no longer had the authority to revive the religious order which the previous Pope had dissolved. “Perpetual” merely means here until some further legitimate enactment is carried out by a sovereign Pontiff. (Whitehead, p. 59-60).[/quote]

From Catholic apologist Matt1618. See the full article here:

[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html#I.%20Did%20Pope%20Paul%20VI%20have%20authorization%20to%20create%20a%20New%20Mass"]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.h...0a%20New%20Mass[/url]?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 5 2005, 02:02 PM'] I thought it was funny that Cam called you "popest" like, "the most popish of them all" or something.

:ph34r: nevermind [/quote]
Oh.

[popestpiusx]

'Perpetual' is a term of art. It's used in the law as well. For instance, the Articles of Confederation claimed a perpetual union. We all know that is not the case, nor did they intend it to mean what it looks like. The union could be dissolved at any time or seceded from by any member. Perpetual doesn't mean forever in this sense. That being said, reforming the liturgy does not mean creating a new one. If a new one is created (and that is what happened) then for the old one to be no longer acceptable, the promulgation of the old must be abrogated (which has not happened). So we have a peculiar situation where the priests in the Latin Rite have a relative right to say either one, without fear of reprisal.

[Guest Eremite]

Popestpiusx,

A new Liturgy was not created. The Missal of Paul VI bears the same basic structure as the Missal of Pius V. Rite of penitence, gloria, scripture readings, homily, creed, consecration, and communion. It just simplified the Tridentine order of things.

One of the things I wish very much was restored is the prayers at the foot of the altar. They are an excellent start to the Liturgy. However, they are far from essential to the Roman Rite. They were very late medieval developments, and were originally just private prayers just said by the priest, rather than a part of the Missal. The prayers at the foot of the altar are basically petitions for pardon and strength, which we still have in the rite of penitence, although, as I said, in a simplified form.

And the priest does not have a right to use whatever missal he wants, because the Missal of Paul VI is not a new rite, but a new version of the Roman Missal. This is why it is called the "Novus Ordo". It is simply a new order of the Roman rite, rather than a new rite.

[popestpiusx]

Now we come to the heart of the debate; one in which I am afraid I do not have time for at this moment, and one that I am not sure we are even allowed to have on here. Suffice it to say that at the very least, you are in disagreement with Cardinal Ratzinger. I'm not claiming that you are right or wrong as a result of that. Just that that is the case.