Can the Papacy bind itself, Quo Primum

[EliRotello]

Can the Papacy bind itself, for example, like in the example of the Quiscumque in Quo Primum?

[Santantonio]

in what sense ? silence on an issue ?

[EliRotello]

In any sense.

[Jayne]

A pope cannot bind a future pope on disciplinary issues.  Infallible teaching (i.e. pertaining to faith or morals), by definition, cannot be contradicted.

[Prayerful]

Can the Papacy bind itself, for example, like in the example of the Quiscumque in Quo Primum?

Pope Saint Pius V evidently thought so, or it would seem he thought so, at least on certain matters like the bloodless sacrifice of the Mass. Yet a Pope maybe introduce or suppress prayers and devotions. Fr Wathen in his Great Sacrilege considered that the power of a Pope did not extend as far as suppressing the Mass, that Quo Primum was binding. Fr also mentioned the rather interesting divergence between the Latin of Missale Romanum which has more of a tone of offering something new to the faithful, and the English translation which had some more imperative language and a specific deadline.

[Jayne]

Pius XII's encyclical Mediator Dei addresses the question of papal authority over liturgy:

49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]

50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."

51. Several causes, really have been instrumental in the progress and development of the sacred liturgy during the long and glorious life of the Church.

52. Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ's people more readily.

53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.

54. Just as notable a contribution to this progressive transformation was made by devotional trends and practices not directly related to the sacred liturgy, which began to appear, by God's wonderful design, in later periods, and grew to be so popular. We may instance the spread and ever mounting ardor of devotion to the Blessed Eucharist, devotion to the most bitter passion of our Redeemer, devotion to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, to the Virgin Mother of God and to her most chaste spouse.

55. Other manifestations of piety have also played their circumstantial part in this same liturgical development. Among them may be cited the public pilgrimages to the tombs of the martyrs prompted by motives of devotion, the special periods of fasting instituted for the same reason, and lastly, in this gracious city of Rome, the penitential recitation of the litanies during the "station" processions, in which even the Sovereign Pontiff frequently joined.

56. It is likewise easy to understand that the progress of the fine arts, those of architecture, painting and music above all, has exerted considerable influence on the choice and disposition of the various external features of the sacred liturgy.

57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about - during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors - that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.[48] This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.[49]

58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to 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.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html

ETA: I question whether this is compatible with Fr. Wathen's opinions.

[Prayerful]

Pius XII's encyclical Mediator Dei addresses the question of papal authority over liturgy:

49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]

50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."

51. Several causes, really have been instrumental in the progress and development of the sacred liturgy during the long and glorious life of the Church.

52. Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ's people more readily.

53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.

54. Just as notable a contribution to this progressive transformation was made by devotional trends and practices not directly related to the sacred liturgy, which began to appear, by God's wonderful design, in later periods, and grew to be so popular. We may instance the spread and ever mounting ardor of devotion to the Blessed Eucharist, devotion to the most bitter passion of our Redeemer, devotion to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, to the Virgin Mother of God and to her most chaste spouse.

55. Other manifestations of piety have also played their circumstantial part in this same liturgical development. Among them may be cited the public pilgrimages to the tombs of the martyrs prompted by motives of devotion, the special periods of fasting instituted for the same reason, and lastly, in this gracious city of Rome, the penitential recitation of the litanies during the "station" processions, in which even the Sovereign Pontiff frequently joined.

56. It is likewise easy to understand that the progress of the fine arts, those of architecture, painting and music above all, has exerted considerable influence on the choice and disposition of the various external features of the sacred liturgy.

57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about - during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors - that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.[48] This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.[49]

58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to 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.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html

ETA: I question whether this is compatible with Fr. Wathen's opinions.

It seems to run contrary, and for all Fr Wathen's fine efforts for Tradition, Ven Pius XII had more standing, most particularly as this was an encyclical not a privately given allocutio or sermon, but I'll doublecheck what Fr wrote. Yet the New Mass seemed to frustrate some of the ends quoted. It is the very opposite of beautiful and was open to every sort of imprudent innovation, contra 57 and more. The ICEL translation where pro multis was falsely rendered as 'for all' on the basis of an unfounded pet theory regarding Hebrew, was almost worse than the New Mass (maybe the Latin typical edition or another translation) which +Lefebvre stated 'led to heresy.' It appeared in some parts to have arrived at that dark place. Will check. Although the Conciliar Popes rarely bound anyone infallibly, they seemed to point people towards error, at points. Not even an angel from heaven can direct a Catholic towards error.

[Counter Revolutionary]

A pope cannot bind a future pope on disciplinary issues.  Infallible teaching (i.e. pertaining to faith or morals), by definition, cannot be contradicted.

Pope St. Pius X taught very clearly that the liturgy is not wholly a matter of discipline. He wrote in Pascendi the following, "Now every society needs a directing authority to guide its members towards the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship. Hence the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic, liturgical." http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

If the liturgy were wholly a matter of discipline, then St. Pius X would have written about the "double authority" in the Catholic Church, and not the "triple authority."

Catholics are dogmatically bound to adhere to the received approved rites of the Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 13). John Salza wrote an excellent article on the implications of the Novus Ordo as a new rite of Mass which can be read on his website here http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Catholic%20Tradition/Feature%20-%20The%20Implications%20of%20the%20Novus%20Ordo%20as%20a%20New%20Rite%20of%20Mass.pdf

Fr. Gregory Hesse also did a great job explaining the binding force of Quo Primum. Fr. Hesse's talks on the subject have been put up on YouTube.

[Jayne]

It seems to run contrary, and for all Fr Wathen's fine efforts for Tradition, Ven Pius XII had more standing, most particularly as this was an encyclical not a privately given allocutio or sermon, but I'll doublecheck what Fr wrote. Yet the New Mass seemed to frustrate some of the ends quoted. It is the very opposite of beautiful and was open to every sort of imprudent innovation, contra 57 and more. The ICEL translation where pro multis was falsely rendered as 'for all' on the basis of an unfounded pet theory regarding Hebrew, was almost worse than the New Mass (maybe the Latin typical edition or another translation) which +Lefebvre stated 'led to heresy.' It appeared in some parts to have arrived at that dark place. Will check. Although the Conciliar Popes rarely bound anyone infallibly, they seemed to point people towards error, at points. Not even an angel from heaven can direct a Catholic towards error.

I think that Mediator Dei shows that a pope does have authority to make changes to the Mass.  So we can't say that there was a lack of authority to promulgate the Novus Ordo.  However, that still leaves other serious problems with it, such as what you mention above.

[Jayne]

A pope cannot bind a future pope on disciplinary issues.  Infallible teaching (i.e. pertaining to faith or morals), by definition, cannot be contradicted.

Pope St. Pius X taught very clearly that the liturgy is not wholly a matter of discipline. He wrote in Pascendi the following, "Now every society needs a directing authority to guide its members towards the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship. Hence the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic, liturgical." http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

If the liturgy were wholly a matter of discipline, then St. Pius X would have written about the "double authority" in the Catholic Church, and not the "triple authority."

That's right.  Liturgy is not wholly a matter of discipline.  I hope you did not misunderstand me to be saying that it was. The passage from Mediator Dei supports this, in particular:

The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized.

That makes it pretty clear that there are some things about the Mass that can be changed.  I think that one of the things that can not be changed is the words necessary for Transubstantiation.  But I am not sure what else would be included in unchangeable divine elements.

As for the question of whether Quo Primum is binding on future popes, it is clear from the text that it is not.  It lists those upon whom it is binding:

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Pius V is addressing everyone under his authority.  It does not mention future popes because they are not under his authority.  It is comparable to the section in Mediator Dei that says:

It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to 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.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters...

Both documents are saying that no clergy other than a pope can change the sacred liturgy.

[Counter Revolutionary]

The Dogmatic Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema." 

Fr. Gregory Hesse:
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/documents.htm

The word 'whomsoever' includes the Pope himself, who is the Prime Minister (pastor). Latin: per quem cumque Ecclesiarum Pastorum

"I receive and accept the rites of the Catholic Church which have been received and approved in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid sacraments" – Profession of Faith of Bl. Pius IX at Vatican I

[Jayne]

The Dogmatic Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema." 

Fr. Gregory Hesse:
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/documents.htm

The word 'whomsoever' includes the Pope himself, who is the Prime Minister (pastor). Latin: per quem cumque Ecclesiarum Pastorum

"I receive and accept the rites of the Catholic Church which have been received and approved in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid sacraments" – Profession of Faith of Bl. Pius IX at Vatican I

The quote claiming that "whomsoever" includes the Pope himself comes from someone's summary of a talk by Fr. Hesse.  The author might not have correctly understood what he heard, so this is not necessarily Fr. Hesse's view. Even if Fr. Hesse actually did say this, I do not see how he could have been right.

Around the same time that Pius V issued Quo Primum he also issued a Papal Bull regarding the Divine Office and Breviary, Quod a Nobis, using similar language and forumulae. (I can't find a copy in English but here is a link to the Latin: https://books.google.ca/books?id=-cXYqusIEx8C&dq=breviarium+romanum&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

If the Bulls of Pius V were binding on subsequent popes, then Pope St. Pius X had no right to reform the Breviary in 1911.

ETA: I have seen people make the case that the Novus Ordo is a "received and approved" rite of the Church and therefore those who despise it (as many trads do) are disobeying Trent. So perhaps you want to be careful about using this passage.

ETAA: I found a Fr. Hesse video with his views on the subject here:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8lh59FgURU[/yt]
He did believe that Quo Primum was binding on later Popes.  However he said things in this video that I cannot reconcile with Mediator Dei and these points were foundational to his argument.  I do not see how he could have been right.

[Elizabeth]

Good Fr. Hesse, RIP.  Very worthwhile listening; puts the mind at ease.

[christulsa]

I'm thinking there are liturgical disciplines that are doctrinal that can't be changed, besides the words of consecration.  As an extreme example, I'd think if you put the Mass of the catechumens ('liturgy of the word") after the Canon and communion, it would violate a divinely instituted structure of the Mass.  Didn't Christ institute the Mass as having first a penitential rite, readings, a some kind of Eucharistic prayer, communion rite, etc?  Not that He actually wrote the original prayers, but there is a fixed structure to the Mass that can't be messed with without violating doctrine. 

So I would think a pope can bind a future pope to whatever in the Mass is the divine structure that is doctrine itself.   Not sure that would exactly apply to the exact reforms of the prayers and rubrics of the Roman rite promulgated by Pius V.  BUT, if the New Mass in anyway deviated in its structure from the divine structure of the Church's traditional rites, then I'd think Paul VI did in a way violate Quo Primum and all the popes.

[Jayne]

Didn't Christ institute the Mass as having first a penitential rite, readings, a some kind of Eucharistic prayer, communion rite, etc?  Not that He actually wrote the original prayers, but there is a fixed structure to the Mass that can't be messed with without violating doctrine. 

I have never heard of anything like this, but there is a lot I don't know.  I would be interested if anyone has any information about this.