Can the Papacy bind itself, Quo Primum

[Jayne]

Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church, established by pope st. Pius V, whose very purpose was that of protecting Her Liturgy, forever.

Fr. Wathen said that we cannot say that even popes are not bound by the law of Pius V, because if we say that (the law of) Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy. 

The Church has a way to protect her liturgy. It is the job of the reigning pope.  Pius V protected it in his time and entrusted it to his successors to protect in theirs.  It was not the job of Pius V to protect the liturgy from future popes.  Popes do not work on the assumption that their successors will be evil/incompetent.  Popes do not have authority over their successors.

We are in a time in which we have grave concerns about the way that recent popes have protected the liturgy.  But that does not change the fact that it has been their duty to do so.

[Jayne]

There is no subjective view involved, it is an historical fact, therefore an indisputable reality that Pope Paul VI  did indeed change liturgical elements that have proven to be harmful. Per Quo Primum, what pope Paul VI did was against the law. He had to break the law of Pius V in order to do what he did - which makes what he did, illegal. What he did was against, not for, the law of Pius V, therefore the law was meant to bind everyone, including all future popes.

Are you prepared to make the case that Pope St. Pius X broke the law of Pius V (in Quod a Nobis - of equal force to Quo Primum) when he reformed the Breviary? Those changes were arguably greater than those to the Mass. There are plenty of people who can argue it was harmful.  If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI.

[Stubborn]

But right there...you say the word, "he had to 'break'" the law.  The Pope can not "break" the law.

The pope did break the law.

[Stubborn]

Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church, established by pope st. Pius V, whose very purpose was that of protecting Her Liturgy, forever.

Fr. Wathen said that we cannot say that even popes are not bound by the law of Pius V, because if we say that (the law of) Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy. 

The Church has a way to protect her liturgy. It is the job of the reigning pope.  Pius V protected it in his time and entrusted it to his successors to protect in theirs.  It was not the job of Pius V to protect the liturgy from future popes.  Popes do not work on the assumption that their successors will be evil/incompetent.  Popes do not have authority over their successors.

We are in a time in which we have grave concerns about the way that recent popes have protected the liturgy.  But that does not change the fact that it has been their duty to do so.

Pope Pius V clearly made the TLM which he codified, the law. "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..."

He also made it a law that all other forms of the Mass were to be abolished - excepting those, however, "if more than two hundred years' standing". The new "mass" of pope Paul VI was not around for 200 years before the TLM, therefore the new "mass is itself, unlawful - per Quo Primum.   

You say "The Church has a way to protect her liturgy. It is the job of the reigning pope." I agree, but pope Paul VI broke the law, he did not protect the liturgy, which liturgy was protected by the same law as was used to  protect the liturgy by all the popes from Pius V till the time of the new "mass" of Paul VI - do you agree?

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..."

This command of his does not exclude anyone, not even popes. He orders them all, in virtue of holy obedience to the law, to celebrate only his Mass, that's the Mass he is speaking about specifically. 

You cannot possibly believe that pope Paul VI protected the liturgy.

[Stubborn]

There is no subjective view involved, it is an historical fact, therefore an indisputable reality that Pope Paul VI  did indeed change liturgical elements that have proven to be harmful. Per Quo Primum, what pope Paul VI did was against the law. He had to break the law of Pius V in order to do what he did - which makes what he did, illegal. What he did was against, not for, the law of Pius V, therefore the law was meant to bind everyone, including all future popes.

Are you prepared to make the case that Pope St. Pius X broke the law of Pius V (in Quod a Nobis - of equal force to Quo Primum) when he reformed the Breviary? Those changes were arguably greater than those to the Mass. There are plenty of people who can argue it was harmful.  If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI.

There is nothing in Quo Primum that prohibits popes from making incidental changes that popes deem an improvement. But the new "mass" is not only not an incidental change, it's a flaming disaster of beyond epic proportions whose introduction was to meant to be used as a tool to destroy the faith, not an improvement to the Missal of Pius V.

[EliRotello]

The Pope can not destroy the Faith.  It is an impossibility.

[Jayne]

Pope Pius V clearly made the TLM which he codified, the law. "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..."

He also made it a law that all other forms of the Mass were to be abolished - excepting those, however, "if more than two hundred years' standing". The new "mass" of pope Paul VI was not around for 200 years before the TLM, therefore the new "mass is itself, unlawful - per Quo Primum.   

You say "The Church has a way to protect her liturgy. It is the job of the reigning pope." I agree, but pope Paul VI broke the law, he did not protect the liturgy, which liturgy was protected by the same law as was used to  protect the liturgy by all the popes from Pius V till the time of the new "mass" of Paul VI - do you agree?

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..."

This command of his does not exclude anyone, not even popes. He orders them all, in virtue of holy obedience to the law, to celebrate only his Mass, that's the Mass he is speaking about specifically. 

Pius V used the same sort of language in Quod a Nobis.  If one claims that Paul VI broke the law, then so did Pius X when he made a new Breviary.  If one is going to be consistent, either both did something wrong or neither.

Even if this did not make it clear, we have the explicit words of Pius XII in Mediator Dei saying that the pope has the authority to change the Mass.  The only way to reconcile this document with Quo Primum is to understand that QP is not binding on future popes.
If you insist that QP was binding on future popes, the implication is that St. Pius X is a lawbreaker and the Church has issued contradictory documents.  How can you take a position that leads to such conclusions?

You cannot possibly believe that pope Paul VI protected the liturgy.

I believe that it was his duty to protect the liturgy and he appears to have failed.  (Although there is a theory that the creation of the NO prevented a slow process of tampering with the TLM and ended up preserving it.) 

I'm not saying that Paul VI ought to have promulgated the new Mass.  I believe it has serious problems.  We can say that he misused his authority to create and change liturgy.  But we cannot say that he did not have that authority.  And we can't say that he was bound by Quo Primum.

[Jayne]

There is no subjective view involved, it is an historical fact, therefore an indisputable reality that Pope Paul VI  did indeed change liturgical elements that have proven to be harmful. Per Quo Primum, what pope Paul VI did was against the law. He had to break the law of Pius V in order to do what he did - which makes what he did, illegal. What he did was against, not for, the law of Pius V, therefore the law was meant to bind everyone, including all future popes.

Are you prepared to make the case that Pope St. Pius X broke the law of Pius V (in Quod a Nobis - of equal force to Quo Primum) when he reformed the Breviary? Those changes were arguably greater than those to the Mass. There are plenty of people who can argue it was harmful.  If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI.

There is nothing in Quo Primum that prohibits popes from making incidental changes that popes deem an improvement. But the new "mass" is not only not an incidental change, it's a flaming disaster of beyond epic proportions whose introduction was to meant to be used as a tool to destroy the faith, not an improvement to the Missal of Pius V.

If one takes Quo Primum as binding on future popes, they are prohibited from making any changes at all.  There is nothing in it about incidental changes being allowed.

The badness of the new Mass has nothing to do whether or not Quo Primum is binding on future popes.  It would not be binding if Paul VI had promulgated a Mass that was an improvement on the TLM.  It would not be binding if he promulgated a Mass ten times worse than the Novus Ordo. 

Quo Primum is not binding on future popes because Pius V did not have the authority to bind them and he knew this and did not intend to bind them. 

You did not address my point about St. Pius X.  Are you claiming he is a law breaker?

[martin88nyc]

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..."

Doesn't the "We" part underscore all of the Popes? and as far as I am concerned Paul VI didn't abrogate the old mass, meaning he didn't change the mass. He approved a new missal.

[Stubborn]

The Pope can not destroy the Faith.  It is an impossibility.

I agree absolutely.

[aquinas138]

I align with Jayne's position on this issue. The Pope is bound only by the Faith itself; his authority is supreme in disciplinary and liturgical matters. He is not bound by the disciplinary and liturgical decisions of his predecessors; thus he cannot bind his successors, else he would be superior to them.

Furthermore, "in perpetuity" does not necessarily mean "forever"; legally, it often means "of unspecified duration," i.e., it continues in force until competent authority decides otherwise. Another example from Church history is Clement XIV's suppression of the Jesuits; in Dominus ac Redemptor Noster of 1771, he says that his decree "should for ever and to all eternity be valid, permanent, and efficacious, have and obtain their full force and effect, and be inviolably observed by all and every whom they do or may concern, now or hereafter, in any manner whatever." The fact that the Jesuits were restored 41 years later shows that even though a pope says "forever," he can't really mean "forever-forever" with respect to his successors.

[Stubborn]

If one takes Quo Primum as binding on future popes, they are prohibited from making any changes at all.  There is nothing in it about incidental changes being allowed.

The badness of the new Mass has nothing to do whether or not Quo Primum is binding on future popes.  It would not be binding if Paul VI had promulgated a Mass that was an improvement on the TLM.  It would not be binding if he promulgated a Mass ten times worse than the Novus Ordo. 

Quo Primum is not binding on future popes because Pius V did not have the authority to bind them and he knew this and did not intend to bind them. 

You did not address my point about St. Pius X.  Are you claiming he is a law breaker?

No, I am not claiming pope st. Pius X was a law breaker, and you are injecting another subject unnecessarily. I say unnecessarily because Quo Primum stands entirely on it's own.

While I admit the matter of incorporating 'incidental changes' might seem contrary to the law to some, popes do have the authority to lawfully make changes they deem appropriate - for example, adding the name of St. Joseph to the canon. PJXXIII did not delete the whole canon and all the other names and replace the whole canon and etc. - rather, he exercised his authority for the betterment of the Mass of Pius V and the Universal Church, in the process was conditioning the masses to peacefully accept future changes.   

Was what he did unlawful? No. Did he have the authority to do it? Yes. But to make such comparatively trivial changes with the complete replacement of the Roma Rite of Mass with an entirely New Rite with new doctrines and new beliefs and etc. ad nausem, is not even being honest.   

[Stubborn]

A few Snips from an interview with Fr. Wathen on this subject, not sure of the date, but it was some time after 1984.....


Question: As far as there are three main parts of the Mass, am I right? There's the liceity, the morality and the validity. Would you explain each of these and give a little explanation of each of these in their different areas.

Fr.When you use the word liceity you're referring to the question of whether the new mass is legal.
When you speak of validity, you are discussing whether the consecration of the mass is valid and true, whether there is truly transubstantiation.

When you discuss the matter of morality, you are questioning whether it's a sin either to offer the new mass or to attend it.

I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it.


Question: You believe it's actually a sin, a mortal sin to use the new mass, is that not right?

Fr.That's right. We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it - and we think that to violate the law with regard to the True Mass there is a moral violation, we believe that is a grievous violation, and therefore a sacrilegious violation of the True Mass. It is most important for people, when considering the new mass, always to bear in mind that the Traditional Latin Mass, which is to be found in the Missale Romanum of Pope Pius V, that, that is the standard whereby they judge any other Rite in the Roman Rite.


Question: But the people say that the people make the contention that pope Paul VI had the right so therefore we must accept it.

Fr.That of course is a central question. We deny that he had such a right. That exactly is the point. We have every reason to question whether the pope had the authority to introduce a brand new mass, introduce a new Rite of the liturgy of the Western Church. We believe that when one reads Quo Primum of St. Pius V, he can see clearly that it is altogether forbidden for his successors, any of his successors to go contrary to this law.

Here is a key question, whether a successor can override pope Pius V with regard to the establishment of the Rite of the Mass. It's a key question.

It was never considered that the pope could go contrary to this ruling because Quo Primum was issued to protect the Mass. It was as strong of legislation as the pope could possibly impose. If we say that his successor is not bound by this legislation, we have to say that the Church has no way of protecting it's own liturgy. There is no doctrine that says that a pope cannot make a mistake, there's no such doctrine.


Question: He allowed for incidental and minor changes to be made, but obviously he could probably never imagine....

Fr.That goes without saying, incidental changes could be made. Quo Primum states that only the pope could make such changes. The idea that anyone including the pope, could make a substantive change in the Mass, is so obvious that it is not stated.


Question: The Council of Trent Canon 6 says "if anyone says the Mass contains errors, therefore should be abrogated let them be anathema". Would something like that hold any weight pertaining to what pope Paul VI did? In a way he was saying that it did contain errors therefore should be abrogated did he not?

Fr.I would not say that his changing the Rite of the Mass was a suggestion that there was fault in the old Mass, that canon simply states that the doctrine expressed by the prayers and the ritual of the traditional Mass are thoroughly Catholic, that everyone may have confidence that there is no doctrinal error expressed by this Rite. The matter of the new mass must be considered first of all why the new mass was introduced. Was it introduced because it was suggested there was some deficiency in the old mass, was it introduced for less cogent reasons? It was never suggested that there was some deficiency, it was suggested that there was room for improvement.   
......no sufficient reason was ever given, and no one has a sufficient reason. The only reason they have is that one pope may override the rules and the laws of another. This is an error.


Question: Now people will say Father, that it could be changed because this is simply a matter of discipline, that the pope could change it because it's not a matter of strictly faith and morals he could not make an ex cathedra statement to define the Mass, therefore the pope has the justification to establish a new rite – that's what people are saying and that's why your wrong father.

Fr. People have been given the idea that whatever the pope has the authority to do he may morally do, we deny both that the pope has the authority to introduce a new mass and we insist that the introduction of a totally new Rite with a questionable theology, and that is putting it mildly, the introduction of a new Rite with a questionable theology is not only unlawful, that is, it goes clearly contrary to the established law, but it is immoral, independent of the law of which the pope is bound.

People have the idea that the pope, because he is the head of the Church, has limitless authority. This is altogether wrong. He is not at all limitless in what he may do, he is strictly bound to what he must do and he is bound to adhere to what has been established. The role and the duty of the pope not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don't deviate from it.

[Jayne]

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..."

Doesn't the "We" part underscore all of the Popes? and as far as I am concerned Paul VI didn't abrogate the old mass, meaning he didn't change the mass. He approved a new missal.

As far as everyone is concerned Paul VI did not abrogate the old Mass.  This was made official when stated by Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum.

[Jayne]

If one takes Quo Primum as binding on future popes, they are prohibited from making any changes at all.  There is nothing in it about incidental changes being allowed.

The badness of the new Mass has nothing to do whether or not Quo Primum is binding on future popes.  It would not be binding if Paul VI had promulgated a Mass that was an improvement on the TLM.  It would not be binding if he promulgated a Mass ten times worse than the Novus Ordo. 

Quo Primum is not binding on future popes because Pius V did not have the authority to bind them and he knew this and did not intend to bind them. 

You did not address my point about St. Pius X.  Are you claiming he is a law breaker?

No, I am not claiming pope st. Pius X was a law breaker, and you are injecting another subject unnecessarily. I say unnecessarily because Quo Primum stands entirely on it's own.

Quo Primum does not stand on its own.  In order to understand the meaning of various expressions in it, we need to look at how they are normally used in papal documents.  Reading Quo Primum in isolation leaves one to guess about these terms and leads to misunderstandings.

Quod a Nobis sheds the most light on Quo Primum because they were Papal Bulls issued by the same pope, to implement the same council (Trent), at around the same time.  They used the same expressions to indicate their force.  One concerned the Breviary, the other the Missal.  It is not possible to claim that one was binding on subsequent popes and the other was not.  And if they were both binding, then St. Pius X was a law breaker.

While I admit the matter of incorporating 'incidental changes' might seem contrary to the law to some, popes do have the authority to lawfully make changes they deem appropriate - for example, adding the name of St. Joseph to the canon. PJXXIII did not delete the whole canon and all the other names and replace the whole canon and etc. - rather, he exercised his authority for the betterment of the Mass of Pius V and the Universal Church, in the process was conditioning the masses to peacefully accept future changes.   

Was what he did unlawful? No. Did he have the authority to do it? Yes. But to make such comparatively trivial changes with the complete replacement of the Roma Rite of Mass with an entirely New Rite with new doctrines and new beliefs and etc. ad nausem, is not even being honest.   

Quo Primum does not allow for any changes, trivial or not.  If it is binding on popes, then no changes of any kind should have been made - no small good changes, no big bad changes.