One stumbling block for many folks considering Catholicism is the perceived inconsistencies with papal decrees and infallibility. Quo Primum comes to mind. This was a papal bull written by Pope Pius V around the time of Trent. Now many would consider this bull infallible, correct? Pope Leo XIII wrote a bull call Apostolicae Curae in which he voided Anglican orders and Catholics cling tightly to this as obviously infallible.
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."
The Novus Ordo Mass of Vatican II clearly violates what Pius V says here, does it not? How can one council contradict or supercede a previously infallible statement by a pope?
I think this is why there is the tension between Traditionalist Catholics and modern Catholics who are fine with the present status quo. It’s not clear.
Lumen Gentium also talks about FULL submission to the pope even when he is NOT speaking infallibly which seems to contradict the common apologetic that popes are only infallible when speaking on faith and morals officially from the Chair of Peter.
Some rulings on slavery also seem to contradict or be inconsistent along with the open-mindedness of the papacy and magisterium nowdays to science/evolution etc. whereas guys like Gallileo were jailed previously.
What do you all think about the accusation of inconsistencies and how can the statement of Pius be reconciled with Vatican II.
I’m not pontificating here but rather hoping to learn from people’s posts on this subject. It is frequently on my mind.
God bless all!