Quo Primum encyclical: ex cathedra?


#1

Is anyone familiar with this? Someone has told me this was an infallible, ex-cathedra papal Bull by Pope Pius V in 1570, July 14, and that it states that the Roman Missal of that time should remain the absolute only missal to be used for ever and ever in all rites except for those at least 200 years older than that. In other words, here we are talking about, yes, the Tridentine Latin Mass, and how according to this encyclical it is the only valid Mass that should be celebrated and was never up to revision, even by the second Vatican Council.

How are the changes of Vatican II justified in light of this clearly written ex-cathedra encyclical?


#2

Deacon Ed addresses your question at the bottom of this thread (as of 10 p.m. EST on 12/12/04… .

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=26423


#3

Thanks. I’ve moved over to that thread. :cool:


#4

Quo Primum clearly made exceptions to its injunctions with regards the Mass. For instance, rites that have been celebrated for at least 300 years if I’m not mistaken at the time, are exempted, which leads us to conclude it is essentially disciplinary, not dogmatic in nature. If it were dogmatic, it should apply to the whole Church without exception. If it is not dogmatic, it can be modified or changed by subsequent Popes, which is precisely what happened with the case of Paul VI in issuing the new mass via his Missale Romanum.Gerry :slight_smile:


#5

Excerpts from A DEFENCE OF THE PAULINE MASS by John N. Lupia, Ph. D.

Quo Primum
. . . ]
“Here we have a papal decree that at first glance seems to be unalterable in any way. In order to understand this decree we must examine the meaning of the term, and how Pope Pius V himself understood the text, how subsequent popes dealt with the issue, and if indeed there was any precedent for the changes in the Pauline Rite Mass. Also Was the Tridentine decree only a reaffirmation of 1500 years of an unchanged Mass, from at least the time of Pope Gregory, as is often alleged? Unfortunately, it seems that 20th century people, read 20th century language in understanding 16th century Church documents.

“A careful reading of the text shows that Pope St. Pius V never intended by Quo Primum that further revision of the Roman Missal could never be made, or that no other form of the Roman Mass, could henceforth never be said (as alleged by those against the New Mass). In fact even in Quo Primum he provided for the celebration of other forms of the Mass: rites which had been followed for more than 200 years were specifically exempted from the provisions of Quo Primum and from the use of the St. Pius V Roman Missal (Whitehead, pp. 54-55).

“None of the popes who followed St. Pius V felt bound to not make alterations of the Roman rite. These alterations were done long before the New Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI. As Father Joseph Jungmann, who has done the most thorough study ofthe Roman rite explains “Some real changes since the sixteenth century in the rubrics and in the text of the Missal of Pius V have resulted in certain instances from papal orders, such as Pope Urban VII Pope Clement XII, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius X.” (Father Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, Its Origins and Development, 1950, revised by Charles K. Riepe, Christian Classics, 1974, p. 105).

“An interesting parallel is in 1568 the Apostolic Constitution Quod a Vobix. Here the Pope established the new Roman Breviary with forceful language fully as strong as used in Quo Primum. The so-called Traditionalist view, if to be consistent, (just as they highlight there be absolutely no change to the Missal) would have to argue that there could be no change to the Roman Breviary. If that was the case, why did St. Pope Pius X, not hesitate to revise the Roman Breviary in 1911 by means of his own Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu? Just as Pope Pius X made a revision, so did Pope Paul VI revise the Roman Missal by means of his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum. There were no so-called traditionalists around complaining that Pope St. Pius did not have such authority. The reason is that the Popes did have the authority to revise the Roman Breviary, as well as the Missal.

Quod a Vobis says this about the Breviary, just as Quo Primum says about the Roman Missal:

"’Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles
Peter and Paul.’”

“This was a conventional legal formula in papal documents of the day, not something binding on future popes. As Whitehead notes: “Certainly Pope St. Pius X considered it so when he revised the Roman Breviary in 1911 in spite of the identical caveat contained in St. Pius V’s Quod a Vobis. He specifically says that he is ordering a “new arrangement” of the Roman Breviary “issued by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII,”… When Pope Pius X revised the Roman breviary, he even concluded his Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu with an ecclesiastical caveat against anyone daring to change his decision which was the established legal form to be attached to papal decree in his time. This was stated even while he was revising this ‘in perpetuity’ document of the 16th century!! Thus popes using such language do not stop future popes from making changes; it is remarkably similar to the caveat in Quo Primum.” (Whitehead, p. 57). Prior to Vatican II, other changes were made to the Missal by Pope Pius XII and John XXIII as well. “
. . . ]

Read the full article at A DEFENCE OF THE PAULINE MASS by John N. Lupia, Ph. D.


#6

I stand corrected, it is 200 rather than 300 years. In any case, this proves our point.

Gerry :slight_smile:


#7

[quote=RobedWithLight]I stand corrected, it is 200 rather than 300 years. In any case, this proves our point.

Gerry :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Actually it was ex-cathedra, and not only that, but he stated that NONE of his successors in ages to come may in any way altar the Mass: Puis V: A REAL POPE!!!


#8

Actually it was ex-cathedra, and not only that, but he stated that NONE of his successors in ages to come may in any way altar the Mass: Puis V: A REAL POPE!!!

  1. WAS Quo Primum binding on ALL Catholics? No! Only on Roman Rite Catholics - AND with the limitations indicated!

  2. No! He did NOT state that “NONE of his successors in ages to come may in any way altar the Mass.” This statement (of itself) is objectively false. More than that it fails to grasp the principle that each pope possesses the “fullness” of the keys! Successors DID make minor alterations - which disproves your claim, and confirms that current holders of the office of pope DO possess the fullness of the keys, AND that they are not bound by their predecessors’ merely disciplinary injunction.

Furthermore, your multi-exclammation marked “Puis (sic!) V: A REAL POPE !!!” begs the question: "Do YOU believe that any of the post-Vatican II popes are NOT real popes?

For a further detailed examination of the “traditionalists’” false claims about Quo Primum see Fritz Albers, Ph.D. “In Defense of the Novus Ordo Missae of His Holiness Pope Paul V” HERE


#9

Liturgical forms simply do not fall withing the “faith and morals” domain of an infallible teaching…


#10

[quote=misericordie]Actually it was ex-cathedra, and not only that, but he stated that NONE of his successors in ages to come may in any way altar the Mass: Puis V: A REAL POPE!!!
[/quote]

Are you suggesting that the new Roman[Pauline] Missal is invalid?

This is precisely the schismatic traditionalist position which I find flawed and untenable, considering that Quo Primum clearly made exceptions on which right can be celebrated, such as those that are at least 200 years old at the time. How can it be dogmatic in nature when it has clearly made exceptions? If it were dogmatic, then perhaps you might have a stronger case, but that document is clearly intended to be disciplinary in nature, not dogmatic, and hence can be changed. Dogmatic declarations, by its very nature, does not allow for exceptions, but mere discipline does. Think of the case priestly celibacy in the case of the eastern Catholic clergy.

The phrase “henceforth, now or forever” as applied in Quo Primum simply means it cannot be abrogated unless a future authority does so, and that future authority are the succeding Popes.

If we are to be consistent, Pope St. Pius X in 1911 revised the Roman Breviary through his Apostolic Constitution* Divino Afflattu*, despite the fact that Quod Vobix written by St. Pius V issued the same injunction concerning the Breviary, that the latter as established by Pius V cannot supposedly be altered. Was St. Pius X’s actions on the Breviary invalid then? Does that make St. Pius X a not-so-real Pope?

Another case in point is Pope Clement XIV’s suppression of the Jesuits in 1773 through his Dominis ac Redemptor, with the injunction that such an act is in *perpetuo validas, *yet the succeeding Pope Pius VII re-established the Jesuits in 1814 with his Solicitudo Omnium. Was Pius VII’s act reversing Clement XIV invalid as well, if we are to be consistent?

Gerry :slight_smile:


#11

[quote=Sean O L]1. WAS Quo Primum binding on ALL Catholics? No! Only on Roman Rite Catholics - AND with the limitations indicated!

  1. No! He did NOT state that “NONE of his successors in ages to come may in any way altar the Mass.” This statement (of itself) is objectively false. More than that it fails to grasp the principle that each pope possesses the “fullness” of the keys! Successors DID make minor alterations - which disproves your claim, and confirms that current holders of the office of pope DO possess the fullness of the keys, AND that they are not bound by their predecessors’ merely disciplinary injunction.

Furthermore, your multi-exclammation marked “Puis (sic!) V: A REAL POPE !!!” begs the question: "Do YOU believe that any of the post-Vatican II popes are NOT real popes?

For a further detailed examination of the “traditionalists’” false claims about Quo Primum see Fritz Albers, Ph.D. “In Defense of the Novus Ordo Missae of His Holiness Pope Paul V” HERE
[/quote]

First let me state I am a traditionalist: IN COMMUNION WITH ROME: as I am allowed to be and attend the INDULT Tridentine Mass: per my right to do so: Motu Propio ecclesia dei of Pope John Paul II. Yes, Pope John Paul II is the POPE and I would have to be a nut case not to accept his papacy: as it is willed by God and I would be a heretic/schismatic if I did not as Some nutty traditionalsis do not. I love this Pope, but personally, he cannot compare to some other much more forceful popes who did not let their cardinals or curia actually run the vatican: my favorite: and one in what he said ALWAYS WENT WAS: Pope Pius XII.


#12

First let me state I am a traditionalist: IN COMMUNION WITH ROME: as I am allowed to be and attend the INDULT Tridentine Mass: per my right to do so: Motu Propio ecclesia dei of Pope John Paul II. Yes, Pope John Paul II is the POPE and I would have to be a nut case not to accept his papacy: as it is willed by God and I would be a heretic/schismatic if I did not as Some nutty traditionalsis do not. I love this Pope, but personally, he cannot compare to some other much more forceful popes who did not let their cardinals or curia actually run the vatican: my favorite: and one in what he said ALWAYS WENT WAS: Pope Pius XII.

Well, thank you for your reply – and I accept that what you affirm is true.

However, I would point out the dangers of being “too traditionalist” to the point of making claims – per the example re: “Quo Primum” - which are either inaccurate or totally false – as has been demonstrated.

First of all I do not dispute in any way a right to attend the Roman Rite of Mass according to the 1962 liturgy – nor to attend ANY approved Liturgy.

Secondly, there is, officially, NO “Tridentine” Mass. All Roman Rite Mass Missals (apart from those excepted by Pope St Pius V) are simply known as *Romano Missale * (the Roman Missal). St Pius V’s *Romano Missale * was in accordance with Trent’s reforming directions. Pope Paul VI’s Romano Missale was approved by Pope Paul VI following recommendations for reform by the Vatican II Fathers. The terms “Tridentine” and “Novus Ordo” are commonly, but incorrectly, used.

Thirdly, no person is unilaterally “in union with Rome.” The Lefebvrites claim to be “in union with Rome.” According to Rome - they are not! Furthermore, Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer’s names were removed from the *Annuario Pontifico * - Rome’s Year Book containing the names of those Prelates acknowledged by Rome as being in communion with Rome. There are TWO ways by which a Catholic may be in schism; the second is frequently “forgotten” by traditionalists:
Canon.751: “Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Fourthly, many sedevacantists (who do not believe that there has been a valid pope since Pope Pius XII - and some even extend that to Pope St Pius X) - attend Masses performed by priests who also “claim to be in union with Rome” – frequently those of SSPX priests.

Fifthly, I note that you have not yet answered Gerry’s question “Are you suggesting that the new Roman [Pauline] Missal is invalid?” These days, unanswered questions may be a cause for further concern.

Finally, you are entitled to your view that Pope John Paul II is not your favorite Pope; others will disagree with you – according to **their ** right, having the opinion that he is, in deed, John Paul II the Great - and, in fact, a real pope!.


#13

I answer that ! 1: Did Pope St. Pius V “speak” as the Bishop of Rome, … the Vicar of Christ? I say… yes, He did. 2. Did Pope St. Pius V address all Catholics throughout the universal ( world wide ) Church? I say yes, again. 3> Did Pope St. Pius V speak on a matter of Faith and morals? I say, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the Heart of our faith, and the core of our moral formation… yes He did speak Ex-cathedra.


#14

DeadBishop wrote:

I answer that ! 1: Did Pope St. Pius V “speak” as the Bishop of Rome, … the Vicar of Christ? I say… yes, He did. 2. Did Pope St. Pius V address all Catholics throughout the universal ( world wide ) Church? I say yes, again. 3> Did Pope St. Pius V speak on a matter of Faith and morals? I say, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the Heart of our faith, and the core of our moral formation… yes He did speak Ex-cathedra.

Interesting post, DB - but to whom and what were you responding?

Your point #2: “Did Pope St. Pius V address all Catholics throughout the universal ( world wide ) Church? I say yes, again.”

Would you be kind enough to explain how Quo Primum effected the Faith and Morals of the Byzantine, Maronite, and other Eastern Catholics?

I suggest that, if you cannot provide a rational explanation - then your claim that ALL Catholics were bound by Quo Primum is false. I further suggest that you are emotionally confusing the doctrinal and disciplinary contents in the Bull.

The fact that some provisions in Quo Primum WERE changed by subsequent pre-Vatican II popes seems to have escaped you.

Are YOU suggesting that the Pauline 1969 Mass is invalid?


#15

Nothing was “changed” before Vat II. , just “clarified” in the traditional manner. Vat II. has changed just about every aspect of the Holy Mass to a point that it is questionable if it is even the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass any longer. I stand on my comments, sir.


#16

Under the accepted definition of the term, I believe there are only 2 ***ex cathedra * ** pronouncements of the Popes throughout the history of the Catholic Church:

(1) the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception; and

(2) the Dogma of the Assumption.

***Quo Primum * ** is not.

Amado


#17

[quote=misericordie]Actually it was ex-cathedra, and not only that, but he stated that NONE of his successors in ages to come may in any way altar the Mass: Puis V: A REAL POPE!!!
[/quote]

You state that you are in communion with Rome but your added comment of “A REAL POPE” would seem to say that you think some of the popes after were not real. That would be in conflict with Rome.

Let me ask you one question. How can a document be ex-cathedra when it does not apply to the whole Church?

The form of the Mass is purely a matter of discipline, it has nothing to do with faith and morals.


#18

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