Faith and Morals?

Taken from a very old, closed thread…

Quo Primum declares that the Latin Tridentine form of the Mass is THE ONLY version of the Catholic Mass in the West that may be used except for previous forms that were around in some traditions of the West 200 years before, etc. Here is an excerpt of what Pius V says:
“Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other Churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world”, exceptions were allowed from the start…By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it…No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Now, of course the Novus Ordo completely went against this. Some will say that this Pope was not speaking infallibly in this Papal Bull. However, Isnt what the Pope says on matters of faith and morals binding ???
Who here would say that the Mass is not a matter of the faith ?

The sacrifice of the mass is a matter of faith, but there are rites involved in its celebration which are disciplinary matters and can be changed. Catholics of the different liturgical rites all celebrate the mass with different ceremonies. While Quo Primum forbids changes to the missal, he does not have the authority to bind his successors from making changes. So while Pius forbid changes to the missal (and the breviary), this did not stop his successors from making new editions of the Roman Missal and the Breviary with changes. When the EF mass is celebrated today, it is celebrated according to the 1962 books rather than Pope St. Pius V’s.


  1. Catholics of different liturgical rites were exempt from this, if they practiced an earlier form of the Mass.

  2. The quote is forbiding changes to the Mass itself… just because you say that many of the successors of Pope Pius V made changes to the Missal and breviary does not make it right.
    It just furthers my question of WHY these Popes are going against what Pope Pius V infallibly said.

  3. You say “While Quo Primum forbids changes to the missal, he does not have the authority to bind his successors from making changes.” Really ?
    So, when a Pope says do not change this Mass ( Which is a matter of faith, thus binding ) and ends with saying whoever does change it will be under the wrath of God, Peter and Paul… it’s somehow okay to change it ?

Please explain

Post 15 by JReducation:

…It is not a dogmatic decree, nor a matter of divinely revealed moral law…Liturgical rites are not dogmas. The sacrament is a dogma, not the rite.

Well, somebody saying it in a post, and showing evidence of that are 2 different things.

If Pope Francis declared something and said if you do otherwise you would be under the wrath of God, Peter and Paul… would you brush it off as not being a dogmatic decree ???:shrug:

Did you read the thread?

Yes, although it doesn’t make sense. I thought when the Pope spoke on faith and morals it is binding… I say the Mass is a subject of our faith. They are saying it is a subject of discipline…
Another says as long as the words of consecration have not changed… but they have changed!

I don’t know… I’m glad the first quote of your signature is true… But I’m starting to doubt the second.

And in this case you are talking about a discipline. Let’s put it this way: a doctrine is something that could (in principle) be “true” or “false”. A discipline is something that could (again - in principle) be “a good idea” or “a bad idea”.

Now, what exactly could be “true” or “false” here…? Well, I guess something could be “false” if the Missal in question was not published “recently”… But the main part seems to be something that could not be “true” or “false”, but “good idea” or “bad idea” - thus a discipline, an order, a command, not a doctrine, a dogma. And it does use the words “order and enjoin”, not “declare and define”.

Of course, it is possible to look for some “implicit” doctrines in this text (for example, “The Mass that Pius V is writing about is valid.”), but the part you are talking about sure seems to be a discipline.

  1. The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from the Church. It is an act of obedience. It is an act of coherence of the Church with herself. It is a step forward for her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality, to which we all must give prompt assent.
  1. It is not an arbitrary act. It is not a transitory or optional experiment. It is not some dilettante’s improvisation. It is a law.

10…Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.

  1. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition.

The only change, as far as I can see, is the removal of Mysterium fidei. Here are some thoughts from Fr. Z. on his blog (Mysterium fidei: some thoughts).

The words “mysterium fidei”, not found in the biblical institution narrative, have been embedded in the formula of consecration of the chalice since at least the 7th century.

They were displaced in the 20th.

It is possible that in the ancient Church a deacon said these words aloud to clue people in about what was going on behind the curtains drawn before the altar.

History shrouds exactly how the non-Scriptural mysterium fidei was inserted into the consecration formula.

No one should doubt the validity of the consecration in the Novus Ordo because the words mysterium fidei were displaced.

First, the words of consecration have, over the history of the Church, varied. Eastern Catholics and Orthodox did not use the phrase. Also, it is impossible that the Vicar of Christ and Holy Church would permit continuous use of an invalid sacramental form in the Church’s most precious treasure, the Mass. Furthermore, it is the tradition of the Church that Christ effected the transubstantiation of His Body and Blood by saying ‘This is My Body,’ and ‘This is My Blood’.” These words are in every form of consecration.

The form of the Mass is not and never has been a matter of doctrine. It is a matter of discipline which means (apart from words of consecration and priest receiving Communion) everything else in the Mass can be changed.
As a matter of discipline it also means that no Pope can bind a future Pope.

As Ive already stated, it seems the words of consecration HAVE changed…

Fr. Peter Carota appears to be using some misdirection. The only thing he says that is correct is; “Mysterium fidei has been removed from the formula and put after the formula”.

Here is the Novus Ordo (New Mass) Latin Formula:

Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est Enim Calix Sanguines mei, Novi et aeterni Testamenti, Qui pro vobis et pro multis Effundtur in remissionem peccatorum, (Hoc facite In meam commemorationem). This part in parenthesis was added on to the consecration formula and changed from the Latin Mass (Heac quotiescumque faceritis, in mei memoriam facie tis).

This is incorrect. The Roman Missal (1962), published by Baronius Press, says after “remissionem peccatorum”, and in red, “After the consecration of the Chalice, the Priest says in a low voice: Heac quotiescumque faceritis, in mei memoriam facietis.” It is clear, from the Missal, that this is not part of the consecration.

The Consecration of the Precious Blood, the Form has actually changed by other parts have been added (Accipite et bibite ex eo omens

This is, also, incorrect. “Accipite et bibite ex eo omens” is also said before “Hic est…” in the TLM and is not part of the consecration, in either form.

Hic set enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni Testamenti: Mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionen peccatorum.

Hic est Enim Calix Sanguines mei, Novi et aeterni Testamenti, Qui pro vobis et pro multis Effundtur in remissionem peccatorum

With the exception of the Mysterium fidei, they are identical (I have, in my hand, the Roman Missal (1962) and the Daily Roman Missal (MTF)). As for the Mysterium fidei, see my previous post.

The Form (For this is My Body) has been changed to (Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body, which will be given up for you). Yes, the valid form is still present in the new formula, but why did it have to be changed by adding on to it?

Again, misdirection. “Hoc est enim Corpus meum” are the words of consecration. What is said before or after them is not. “Take this, all of you, and eat it” is also said before the words of consecration in the TLM. “Accipite, et manducate ex hoc omnes” is the same in both missals and said before “Hoc est…” in both forms.

Why was this needed after hundreds and hundreds of years?

I think Pope Venerable Paul VI explained it very well (see previous post).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit