Can the Papacy bind itself, Quo Primum

[Jayne]

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

Fr. Wathen is not here to explain how to reconcile his opinions with what Pius XII wrote in Mediator Dei so we have to try it on our own.  Compare

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.

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.

If there is no way that both of these statements can be true, we must accept the papal encyclical over the opinion of a priest, no matter how respected.  Personally I can't see how to reconcile them.  Can you?

[martin88nyc]

But it is also my understanding that "new rites" does't mean a whole new mass. They didn't see it that way. Barely anyone back then would've taken it as an excuse for creating a new mass. This is what I think. 

[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.

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.

Yes, Quo Primum does stand on it's own. Quo Primum clearly is legislation established for the purpose of protecting the liturgy. It decrees "This Rite to be used...." - it does not say "This Rite to be used unless another pope chooses to trash it all to heck and replace it with the prot NO because after all, popes do have that authority".

You should not need Quod a Nobis or anything else to understand this.

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.

No, you are scrutinizing the mind of the pope and you are presuming to do this without reading what is written.
If you read what he wrote, you will see that he is telling "all of the churches referred to above" - "nothing must be added" or omitted or changed within the missal he just published. The reason he is telling them specifically this, is because he is commanding them to stop saying the Mass and missal they've been used to saying and using, and to now use his missal - unless the mass they've been saying has been the practice of at least 200 years. That is all he is saying about that. You are not placing the emphasis in the right place, but when you do, you will understand that he is speaking to a specific group here.


All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, 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 under the penalty of Our displeasure.

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


He then goes onto bind the Church to this 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, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.

Got it?

[Jayne]

But it is also my understanding that "new rites" does't mean a whole new mass. They didn't see it that way. Barely anyone back then would've taken it as an excuse for creating a new mass. This is what I think. 

Why would the phrase "new rites" exclude the rite of Mass?  There is nothing in the context that implies that.

Mediator Dei was written in 1947 when the Liturgical Movement was well established.  To a large extent, the encyclical was a response to the Liturgical Movement, to address unauthorized liturgical experimentation.  The possibility of a new rite of Mass might not have been taken seriously by many, but the idea was out there.

[Jayne]

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.

No, you are scrutinizing the mind of the pope and you are presuming to do this without reading what is written.

I saw nothing in that big long quote that suggests that Quo Primum allows for trivial changes.  Could you point out the specific words that say future popes can make trivial changes?  It looks to me like I am the one taking it as written and you are the one reading something in that is not there.  I do not see how  "nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure" means that trivial changes are allowed.

[Stubborn]

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.

No, you are scrutinizing the mind of the pope and you are presuming to do this without reading what is written.

I saw nothing in that big long quote that suggests that Quo Primum allows for trivial changes.  Could you point out the specific words that say future popes can make trivial changes?  It looks to me like I am the one taking it as written and you are the one reading something in that is not there.  I do not see how  "nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure" means that trivial changes are allowed.

When he says that, he is speaking specifically to "All other of the churches referred to above", not to the universal Church.

[Stubborn]

If there is no way that both of these statements can be true, we must accept the papal encyclical over the opinion of a priest, no matter how respected.  Personally I can't see how to reconcile them.  Can you?

You are again missing the context or misapplying the jist of what PPXII is saying.

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. ......

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.

Again, while the pontiff alone enjoys the right, PPXII said that this right, is to be used for a specific reason - namely, "to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches".

You would have PPXII give popes the right to do whatever they darn well please - even change the liturgy and create new rites so that *they* could be the ones to abuse the liturgy and promote dangerous and imprudent innovations.

[Jayne]

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.

No, you are scrutinizing the mind of the pope and you are presuming to do this without reading what is written.

I saw nothing in that big long quote that suggests that Quo Primum allows for trivial changes.  Could you point out the specific words that say future popes can make trivial changes?  It looks to me like I am the one taking it as written and you are the one reading something in that is not there.  I do not see how  "nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure" means that trivial changes are allowed.

When he says that, he is speaking specifically to "All other of the churches referred to above", not to the universal Church.

In the section that you claim is addressed to the universal Church for all time he says "this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely." How does this mean that trivial changes are allowed? What words are giving you the idea that  future popes are allowed to make trivial changes?

[Jayne]

If there is no way that both of these statements can be true, we must accept the papal encyclical over the opinion of a priest, no matter how respected.  Personally I can't see how to reconcile them.  Can you?

You are again missing the context or misapplying the jist of what PPXII is saying.

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. ......

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.

Again, while the pontiff alone enjoys the right, PPXII said that this right, is to be used for a specific reason - namely, "to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches".

You would have PPXII give popes the right to do whatever they darn well please - even change the liturgy and create new rites so that *they* could be the ones to abuse the liturgy and promote dangerous and imprudent innovations.

One could probably make a good case that Paul VI misused the right to create a new Mass and that he was not following the conditions given in Mediator Dei. But even if one proved this conclusively, there would still be a contradiction between Mediator Dei and your way of understanding Quo Primum.  If popes have the right to change the Mass as stated in MD then they have not been bound by QP.  Your way of understanding QP cannot be correct if we accept MD.

[Stubborn]

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.

No, you are scrutinizing the mind of the pope and you are presuming to do this without reading what is written.

I saw nothing in that big long quote that suggests that Quo Primum allows for trivial changes.  Could you point out the specific words that say future popes can make trivial changes?  It looks to me like I am the one taking it as written and you are the one reading something in that is not there.  I do not see how  "nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure" means that trivial changes are allowed.

When he says that, he is speaking specifically to "All other of the churches referred to above", not to the universal Church.

In the section that you claim is addressed to the universal Church for all time he says "this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely." How does this mean that trivial changes are allowed? What words are giving you the idea that  future popes are allowed to make trivial changes?

His instructions that he gives to the Church, states that in perpetuity, "for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely" - this means what it says. It means no one is allowed to use any other missal. That's what it means. It does not say, therefore it does not mean, that popes are forbidden to make incidental changes. It simply doesn't.

[Stubborn]

If there is no way that both of these statements can be true, we must accept the papal encyclical over the opinion of a priest, no matter how respected.  Personally I can't see how to reconcile them.  Can you?

You are again missing the context or misapplying the jist of what PPXII is saying.

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. ......

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.

Again, while the pontiff alone enjoys the right, PPXII said that this right, is to be used for a specific reason - namely, "to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches".

You would have PPXII give popes the right to do whatever they darn well please - even change the liturgy and create new rites so that *they* could be the ones to abuse the liturgy and promote dangerous and imprudent innovations.

One could probably make a good case that Paul VI misused the right to create a new Mass and that he was not following the conditions given in Mediator Dei. But even if one proved this conclusively, there would still be a contradiction between Mediator Dei and your way of understanding Quo Primum.  If popes have the right to change the Mass as stated in MD then they have not been bound by QP.  Your way of understanding QP cannot be correct if we accept MD.

You must first understand that when the new "mass" and Rite were being concocted, the crooks made many of the changes according to MD as if MD was their instruction manual in reverse. MD says it's wrong to use a table instead of an altar - the NO uses a table instead of an altar. MD says it's "neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device", the NO reduces many of their reasons for many of the changes to antiquity. MD says it's wrong to exclude black vestments, the NO excludes black vestments.

So when MD says only the pope has the right to make changes as long as he does so in order to protect the purity and sanctity of the liturgy and prevent abuses and innovations - what do you suppose the NO did? As we see, the pope used his authority to destroy whatever he could of the purity and sanctity of the liturgy and promote abuses and create innovations up the wazoo. 

[Jayne]

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.

No, you are scrutinizing the mind of the pope and you are presuming to do this without reading what is written.

I saw nothing in that big long quote that suggests that Quo Primum allows for trivial changes.  Could you point out the specific words that say future popes can make trivial changes?  It looks to me like I am the one taking it as written and you are the one reading something in that is not there.  I do not see how  "nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure" means that trivial changes are allowed.

When he says that, he is speaking specifically to "All other of the churches referred to above", not to the universal Church.

In the section that you claim is addressed to the universal Church for all time he says "this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely." How does this mean that trivial changes are allowed? What words are giving you the idea that  future popes are allowed to make trivial changes?

His instructions that he gives to the Church, states that in perpetuity, "for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely" - this means what it says. It means no one is allowed to use any other missal. That's what it means. It does not say, therefore it does not mean, that popes are forbidden to make incidental changes. It simply doesn't.

I checked the Latin word translated "absolutely" in the above.  It is the word omnino which can also be translated as "completely," "entirely," or "wholly."  If the Missal is to be followed omnino I do not see how that allows for any changes to it.

But this may all be moot, since I discovered something interesting when I checked the Latin.  You used a poor translation.  Here is the Latin for the part you say applies to the universal Church throughout time:

Atque ut hoc ipsum Missale in Missa decantanda, aut recitanda in quibusvis Ecclesiis absque ullo conscientiae scrupulo, aut aliquarum poenarum, sententiarum et censurarum incursu, posthac omnino sequantur, eoque libere et licite uti possint et valeant, auctoritate Apostoloca, tenore praesentium, etiam perpetuo concedimus et indulgemus.

Here is a better translation with the key difference bolded:

Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.

It is using a subjunctive construction that means it is giving permission, not an order.  This does not bind future popes to follow the Tridentine Mass at all.

[Jayne]

You must first understand that when the new "mass" and Rite were being concocted, the crooks made many of the changes according to MD as if MD was their instruction manual in reverse. MD says it's wrong to use a table instead of an altar - the NO uses a table instead of an altar. MD says it's "neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device", the NO reduces many of their reasons for many of the changes to antiquity. MD says it's wrong to exclude black vestments, the NO excludes black vestments.

So when MD says only the pope has the right to make changes as long as he does so in order to protect the purity and sanctity of the liturgy and prevent abuses and innovations - what do you suppose the NO did? As we see, the pope used his authority to destroy whatever he could of the purity and sanctity of the liturgy and promote abuses and create innovations up the wazoo.

No matter how true any of this may be, it has no bearing on the contradiction between MD and your understanding of QP.

I think I understand why you are so reluctant to concede that Quo Primum is not binding on future popes.  You have seen this position used in arguments to justify the Novus Ordo.  People say, "Since QP was not binding, Pope Paul VI had a right to create a new Mass and we must accept it."  But that is a flawed argument.  It does not follow from acknowledging that QP is not binding that we must consider the Novus Ordo to be acceptable.

[martin88nyc]

We have a right to our received and approved rites so whether Novus Ordo is legit or not we hold fast to our patrimony.

[Stubborn]

You must first understand that when the new "mass" and Rite were being concocted, the crooks made many of the changes according to MD as if MD was their instruction manual in reverse. MD says it's wrong to use a table instead of an altar - the NO uses a table instead of an altar. MD says it's "neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device", the NO reduces many of their reasons for many of the changes to antiquity. MD says it's wrong to exclude black vestments, the NO excludes black vestments.

So when MD says only the pope has the right to make changes as long as he does so in order to protect the purity and sanctity of the liturgy and prevent abuses and innovations - what do you suppose the NO did? As we see, the pope used his authority to destroy whatever he could of the purity and sanctity of the liturgy and promote abuses and create innovations up the wazoo.

No matter how true any of this may be, it has no bearing on the contradiction between MD and your understanding of QP.

I think I understand why you are so reluctant to concede that Quo Primum is not binding on future popes.  You have seen this position used in arguments to justify the Novus Ordo.  People say, "Since QP was not binding, Pope Paul VI had a right to create a new Mass and we must accept it."  But that is a flawed argument.  It does not follow from acknowledging that QP is not binding that we must consider the Novus Ordo to be acceptable.

No Jayne, you are missing the entire point. The point being the pope, Pius V, made a law the whole Church is bound to obey, he made this law specifically for the purpose of protecting the liturgy. Protecting the liturgy, as you must know, entails many things, not just the words of the prayers in the missal, but also the rituals, the language and universality of the form, the liturgical colors and etc. etc. - i.e. so that it would be the exact same Mass being celebrated everywhere in the world always, in perpetuity. As is said in Quo Primum, "that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass". That's the reason that pope Pius V made the law.

But it is also clear that per Quo Primum, the missal of PPV is to be followed absolutely - whether you want to translate that to "may" be followed or "must" be followed is irrelevant, what matters is that *only* his missal is to be followed, that's what matters  - that is the law he made. It just is. There is no getting around that as long as the world exists.

This is why only popes have the right and can legally make incidental changes to the missal of Pius V - there is nothing in Quo Primum suggesting otherwise.

But, that is not what Pope Paul VI did, he did not make incidental changes, he didn't even make a single change to the missal of Pius V, what he did was replace the missal completely with his own invention.

Per Quo Primum, this is contrary to the law; ("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")  and it is contrary to the law whether he had a right to replace it or not - so the argument ends on this fact, that PPVI made a new rite - the "New Order" - this is contrary to the law no matter how anyone looks at it.

Being contrary to the law makes the new mass illegal. PPVI cannot make it not illegal unless he abrogated the law - which he never did. This is the reason Fr. Wathen rightly said; "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..."

Certainly there can even be a case made that Pius V meant it was ok for popes to make incidental changes when he said; "We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal" - what does he mean if not "incidental changes may be permitted as long as no one is forcing him to make the changes" - can this sentence be construed that popes may make incidental changes? I think so but for me, I've always understood that it goes without saying that incidental changes could indeed be made - but of course, only by popes. I don't think my understanding is wrong, if it is, no one has proven it to be wrong.