Can the Papacy bind itself, Quo Primum

[Jayne]

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.

Pius V did not say anything about protecting the liturgy.  The reason that he gives for  issuing Quo Primum is near the beginning of the Bull:

Whereas amongst other decrees of the Holy Council of Trent We were charged with revision and re-issue of the sacred books, to wit the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary; and whereas We have with God's consent published a Catechism for the instruction of the faithful, and thoroughly revised the Breviary for the due performance of the Divine Office, We next, in order that Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony, as is right and proper (considering that it is altogether fitting that there should be in the Church only one appropriate manner of Psalmody and one sole rite of celebrating Mass), deemed it necessary to give Our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, namely the re-editing of the Missal with the least possible delay.

The reason given for the Missal is "order that Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony".  He wants a Missal that matches the Breviary he has just promulgated in Quod a Nobis.  But "the appropriate manner for reciting the Psalms" was drastically changed by St. Pius X.  So the reason for using the Tridentine Mass no longer existed at the time of Paul VI.

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.

There is a huge difference between a document that says people are allowed to use a certain missal and one that says that people must use it.  Your ideas about Quo Primum appear to bear little relationship its words.  You seem to have decided what you want it to mean and the words are irrelevant.

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.

The "law" you cite above is mistranslated.  Here is the correct translation with a bit more context: "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."

A statement that a missal may be used without penalty is not a law that this is the only missal that can be used.  It is absurd to claim that this sentence bound all subsequent popes to forever use the Tridentine missal.

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.

That is an odd way to understand those words.  There is no reason at all to think it is about incidental changes.  It almost certainly refers to the following paragraphs about printers and publishers.  He is saying that it is wrong to force them to alter the approved missal. 

[Stubborn]

Snip from the same interview as posted earlier in this thread. This picks back up where they're speaking about the matter of the new words of consecration aka "for all" vs "for many " and ends talking about the pope's authority re: the law.


Question: .... Now people look at this as if it is a minor change, but pope St. Pius V stated in De Defectibus that if anyone changes the words of consecration so as to change the meaning, he does not confect the sacrament. Now the thing is that people look at this change from "many" to "all" is if it's a minor change but that is not a minor change.

Fr. People are generally not invited to examine this matter at all. They are told that they simply must put all their trust in the priests, bishops and the pope. The matter is not presented to them so that they may know what is at issue here. But we have to insist that every individual is involved here, every Catholic is involved and should know that the form of consecration of the wine has been changed, and that it was changed without explanation, it was changed without any need, and the words of the new form most certainly do not mean the same thing that the old for stated. There can be no denying that the new form does not say exactly the same thing as the old form said.

As to whether this renders the consecration invalid, we cannot say definitively because individual Catholics, priests included, do not have the right to make those decisions, but we do have to say that something serious has happened and we do have a right to an explanation and we have every reason to question. We have a moral obligation to question. We must be satisfied that what has been done does not alter the Rite of the Mass - and it is impossible to examine the matter without having grave doubts.

If any who Catholic examines the matter does not have grave doubts, it is because he is not thinking straight, he is thinking as he is told to think.

We say that people must not participate, must not have anything to do with the new mass because it is a sacrilege. It is a sacrilege because it violates the standard which the Church established through pope St. Pius V. It is a deliberate effort to destroy that standard.

People must be convinced that the purpose of the new mass was to banish forever the traditional Latin Mass. They may or may not be surprised that they have evoked such a violent reaction to their efforts ever since the new mass appeared there has been resistance to it. They condemn our resistance and they hold the law at us. They tell us or they say to others about us that we are rebels that we are disobedient. We respond, no, they are disobedient. They are the ones who are going contrary to the law. They are the ones that have engineered something that had been forbidden.



Question: When you were ordained, the priests use to take two oaths, one against modernism and one for fidelity to the canons of the council or Trent, is that correct? 

Fr. We are bound by our oath to adhere to the canons of all the councils. The profession of faith mentions the last two councils before the Second Vatican Council specifically – the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council. Priests, in the vowing to be loyal, to be faithful to those councils, indirectly is vowing fidelity to the Rite of the Mass because the Council of Trent called for the introduction, establishment and issuance of a new missal for the sake of perfect uniformity both of ritual and of doctrine. That is why the council made this legislation so that there would be a uniform Rite, so that all Catholic of the Roman Rite might know the true Catholic Mass, as opposed to anything contrary to it that they might witness or be given by some heretic.



Question: The true name would be the Roman Rite of the Mass, correct?

Fr. We would say, it is the Mass of the Roman Rite, there is only one. Pius V said that there could never be but one and he had the authority to impose this for all time.

If he did not have the authority to do so, even to the extent of binding all his successors, [then] this is to say that he, the pope, did not even know the limits of his own authority. This is to say that this pope attempted to do something which he had no authority to do.

And we say, well, then if he did not have that authority then his authority was limited.

We say that if his authority is limited, then all his successors' authority is limited also. And we say yes,  the authority of the pope is limited, but it is not limited to establishing the liturgy of the Mass for all time. It is limited to where a successor cannot discard this Mass because of a whimsy or a deviation from Catholic belief - and there has to be a deviation from Catholic belief on the part of pope Paul VI who would introduce such a mass as what we have – the Novus Ordo Missae.........   

[Stubborn]

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.

Pius V did not say anything about protecting the liturgy.  The reason that he gives for  issuing Quo Primum is near the beginning of the Bull:....

The reason given for the Missal is "order that Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony".  He wants a Missal that matches the Breviary he has just promulgated in Quod a Nobis.  But "the appropriate manner for reciting the Psalms" was drastically changed by St. Pius X.  So the reason for using the Tridentine Mass no longer existed at the time of Paul VI.

You are talking yourself in circles and in the process, you have effectively negated every reason for his ever having fixed the Mass at all, let alone for all time.

Aside from the First Mark of the Church being One (of worship), among pope Pius V's reasons for making a uniform Rite, is so that all Catholics, wherever they may be, would know the true Catholic Mass when they see it. Inherent to this reason is that Catholics, in knowing the Mass when they see it, will know what it is not - that is, that it's not the Catholic Mass when they go somewhere and see a different service going on.

[aquinas138]

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.

Pius V did not say anything about protecting the liturgy.  The reason that he gives for  issuing Quo Primum is near the beginning of the Bull:....

The reason given for the Missal is "order that Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony".  He wants a Missal that matches the Breviary he has just promulgated in Quod a Nobis.  But "the appropriate manner for reciting the Psalms" was drastically changed by St. Pius X.  So the reason for using the Tridentine Mass no longer existed at the time of Paul VI.

You are talking yourself in circles and in the process, you have effectively negated every reason for his ever having fixed the Mass at all, let alone for all time.

Aside from the First Mark of the Church being One (of worship), among pope Pius V's reasons for making a uniform Rite, is so that all Catholics, wherever they may be, would know the true Catholic Mass when they see it. Inherent to this reason is that Catholics, in knowing the Mass when they see it, will know what it is not - that is, that it's not the Catholic Mass when they go somewhere and see a different service going on.

How do Eastern Catholics figure into this line of thinking, and how does the situation of their liturgies differ from the various pre-Tridentine Latin rites?

[Prayerful]

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.

Pius V did not say anything about protecting the liturgy.  The reason that he gives for  issuing Quo Primum is near the beginning of the Bull:....

The reason given for the Missal is "order that Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony".  He wants a Missal that matches the Breviary he has just promulgated in Quod a Nobis.  But "the appropriate manner for reciting the Psalms" was drastically changed by St. Pius X.  So the reason for using the Tridentine Mass no longer existed at the time of Paul VI.

You are talking yourself in circles and in the process, you have effectively negated every reason for his ever having fixed the Mass at all, let alone for all time.

Aside from the First Mark of the Church being One (of worship), among pope Pius V's reasons for making a uniform Rite, is so that all Catholics, wherever they may be, would know the true Catholic Mass when they see it. Inherent to this reason is that Catholics, in knowing the Mass when they see it, will know what it is not - that is, that it's not the Catholic Mass when they go somewhere and see a different service going on.

How do Eastern Catholics figure into this line of thinking, and how does the situation of their liturgies differ from the various pre-Tridentine Latin rites?

The legislation of Trent takes notes of older Rites in the West like that of Braga, Milan or Sarum, plus those of religious orders, over 200 years old. Little enough was said on 'Uniate' Churches except that there was a deliberate avoidance of condemnation of the EO position on additional marriages. Venice noted that a condemnation of the Greek position would harm the Republic in its efforts against the infidel. I see Trent as trying to ensure that a Latin, a European could be certain that he could be certain of hearing the True Mass in the Latin Rite offfered correctly. Italy had, and still has, the Italo-Albanese Eparchy, in southern Italy. Gregory XIII, of calendar fame, made provision late in the sixteenth century for training their priests and Greek Rite priests elsewhere. Trent said little enough about the Catholic Greek, Coptic, Melkite or Maronite Rites.

[Jayne]

I am concerned about my ability to be kind and patient in this thread.  I like and respect Stubborn, so I especially don't want to lose my temper with him.  I think I'll just drop out of this debate now.

Here is a quote from Martin Mosebach's The Heresy of Formlessness that I think we can all agree on:

"Perhaps the greatest damage done by Pope Paul VI's reform of the Mass (and by the ongoing process that has outstripped it), the greatest spiritual deficit, is this: we are now positively obliged to talk about the liturgy. Even those who want to preserve the liturgy or pray in the spirit of the liturgy, and even those who make great sacrifices to remain faithful to it-all have lost something priceless, namely, the innocence that accepts it as something God-given, something that comes down to man as a gift from heaven. Those of us who are defenders of the great and sacred liturgy, the classical Roman liturgy, have all become-whether in a small way or a big way-liturgical experts. In order to counter the arguments of the reform, which was padded with technical, archaeological, and historical scholarship, we had to delve into questions of worship and liturgy-something that is utterly foreign to the religious man [i.e., the man whose religion is so natural to him as to be unintentional and reflexive].

We have let ourselves be led into a kind of scholastic and juridical way of considering the liturgy. What is absolutely indispensable for genuine liturgy? When are the celebrant's whims tolerable, and when do they become unacceptable? We have got used to accepting the liturgy on the basis of minimum requirements, whereas the criteria ought to be maximal. And finally, we have started to evaluate liturgy-a monstrous act! We sit in the pews and ask ourselves, was that Holy Mass, or wasn't it? I go to church to see God and come away like a theatre critic. And if, now and again, we have the privilege of celebrating a Holy Mass that allows us to forget, for a while, the huge historical and religious catastrophe that has profoundly damaged the bridge between man and God, we cannot forget all the efforts that had to be made so that this Mass could take place, how many letters had to be written, how many sacrifices made this Holy Sacrifice possible, so that (among other things) we could pray for a bishop who does not want our prayers and who would prefer not to have his name mentioned in the Canon.

What have we lost? The opportunity to lead a hidden religious life, days begun with a quiet Mass in a modest little neighborhood church; a life in which we learn, over decades, discreetly guided by priests, to mingle our own sacrifice with Christ's sacrifice; a Holy Mass in which we ponder our own sins and the graces given to us-and nothing else; rarely is this possible any more for a Catholic aware of liturgical tradition, once the liturgy's unquestioned status has been destroyed" [1 25-26].

[Maximilian]

Here is a quote from Martin Mosebach's The Heresy of Formlessness that I think we can all agree on:

"Perhaps the greatest damage done by Pope Paul VI's reform of the Mass (and by the ongoing process that has outstripped it), the greatest spiritual deficit, is this: we are now positively obliged to talk about the liturgy. Even those who want to preserve the liturgy or pray in the spirit of the liturgy, and even those who make great sacrifices to remain faithful to it-all have lost something priceless, namely, the innocence that accepts it as something God-given, something that comes down to man as a gift from heaven. Those of us who are defenders of the great and sacred liturgy, the classical Roman liturgy, have all become-whether in a small way or a big way-liturgical experts. In order to counter the arguments of the reform, which was padded with technical, archaeological, and historical scholarship, we had to delve into questions of worship and liturgy-something that is utterly foreign to the religious man [i.e., the man whose religion is so natural to him as to be unintentional and reflexive].

We have let ourselves be led into a kind of scholastic and juridical way of considering the liturgy. What is absolutely indispensable for genuine liturgy? When are the celebrant's whims tolerable, and when do they become unacceptable? We have got used to accepting the liturgy on the basis of minimum requirements, whereas the criteria ought to be maximal. And finally, we have started to evaluate liturgy-a monstrous act! We sit in the pews and ask ourselves, was that Holy Mass, or wasn't it? I go to church to see God and come away like a theatre critic. And if, now and again, we have the privilege of celebrating a Holy Mass that allows us to forget, for a while, the huge historical and religious catastrophe that has profoundly damaged the bridge between man and God, we cannot forget all the efforts that had to be made so that this Mass could take place, how many letters had to be written, how many sacrifices made this Holy Sacrifice possible, so that (among other things) we could pray for a bishop who does not want our prayers and who would prefer not to have his name mentioned in the Canon.

What have we lost? The opportunity to lead a hidden religious life, days begun with a quiet Mass in a modest little neighborhood church; a life in which we learn, over decades, discreetly guided by priests, to mingle our own sacrifice with Christ's sacrifice; a Holy Mass in which we ponder our own sins and the graces given to us-and nothing else; rarely is this possible any more for a Catholic aware of liturgical tradition, once the liturgy's unquestioned status has been destroyed" [1 25-26].

Thanks for providing this excerpt which makes an excellent point. Yes, one way to kill a thing is simply to dissect it, even while saying how much you love it.

No matter how much you might say, "I love this cat, this is my favorite cat," once you've taken a scalpel to it in order to see how it works, the cat is dead. Or like taking a clock apart because you admire how well it works. What are the chances that it will ever work well again after you've tried to replace all the gears and wheels that you took to pieces?

Marriage counseling is nearly always a failure for the same reason. A relationship is a living thing, but once you've cut it all to shreds in order to see how well it's working, there's very little chance of it surviving the operation.

Once the Mass has become a Frankenstein's monster perpetually on the operating table with various pieces continually being removed and replaced, it ceases to be a living, organic reality. Even if you can succeed at injecting enough life to get it to step off the table, it will have no soul.

I think it was Robert Louis Stevenson who had a short story about an artist who was in love with a beautiful woman, but he wasn't satisfied just to love her, he wanted to figure out what made her beautiful, but in doing so he ended up killing her.

[Kaesekopf]

Jaynes done good work in this thread. 

Also, to restrict the liturgy to JUST the missal is such a modern, terrible way to approach liturgy.  Liturgy is both the Mass and the Office.  This is the traditional way a Catholic lives his liturgical life. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Prayerful]

Jaynes done good work in this thread. 

Also, to restrict the liturgy to JUST the missal is such a modern, terrible way to approach liturgy.  Liturgy is both the Mass and the Office.  This is the traditional way a Catholic lives his liturgical life. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

The liturgy, most particularly in the New Mass lectionary, and the New Office share an approach of minimising the sinfulness of man. More of the Bible was superficially covered, but harsher readings and psalms were discarded on no better basis than running contrary to the sixties Cult of Man.

[Kaesekopf]

Yup.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Stubborn]

Jaynes done good work in this thread. 

Also, to restrict the liturgy to JUST the missal is such a modern, terrible way to approach liturgy.  Liturgy is both the Mass and the Office.  This is the traditional way a Catholic lives his liturgical life. 

The topic of this thread is about Quo Primum. It is discussing whether this law is, or to what extent, binding on future popes.

It becomes a discussion as to why PPV made it a law that for the Roman Rite, there could only ever be, one missal, hence one Mass "until another pope decides on a whim, otherwise" is the common thinking. But that thinking, according to QP, is error - because according to QP, only Pope St. Pius V's missal is to be used in perpetuity.   

Then Jayne brings up Quod a nobis (which I cannot find online), but trust it's language is as strong as QP just as she said. She brings up Pope St. Pius X's major revisions to the Roman Breviary which apparently did not effect the Sacrifice of the Mass of Pius V, but she mentions it because the force of the language is the same in each document.

Simply put, I do not see how there can be any comparison to what PPX did with what PPVI did. A few major differences that should immediately stand out between what PPX did to the Breviary and what PPVI did to the Mass, is that prior to publishing the revisions to the Breviary, PPX did what PPVI never did - he numerated reasons for the revisions *and* more importantly, he officially, explicitly abrogated Quod a nobis with his Apostolic Constitution, Divino Afflatu. With this abrogation, PPX made the whole thing licit. This clear, official abrogation from PPX is how we know the revisions to the Breviary were unquestionably legitimate. Being legitimate, they were not contrary to the law, therefore there can be no question - his revisions were not unlawful or illegal.     

Source
Therefore, by the authority of these letters, we first of all abolish the order of the psaltery as it is at present in the Roman breviary, and we absolutely forbid the use of it after the 1st day of January of the year 1913. From that day in all the churches of secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious, by all and several who by office or custom recite the canonical hours according to the Roman breviary issued by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII, we order the religious observance of the new arrangement of the psaltery in the form in which we have approved it and decreed its publication by the Vatican printing press. At the same time we proclaim the penalties prescribed in law against all who fail in their office of reciting the canonical hours everyday; all such are to know that they will not be satisfying this grave duty unless they use this our disposition of the psaltery.....

[Kaesekopf]

There was never just one missal though.  Lol at the carmelites, Dominicans, look at the ambrosian, the mozarabic.  Many rites in the western church, even many variations of the Roman rite. 

I think it's funny that you define legitimate as "if the pope issues the right document".  That sort of papal positivism is what led us to where we are!  Liturgy is more than the bishop of rome!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[mikemac]

Jaynes done good work in this thread. 

Also, to restrict the liturgy to JUST the missal is such a modern, terrible way to approach liturgy.  Liturgy is both the Mass and the Office.  This is the traditional way a Catholic lives his liturgical life. 

The topic of this thread is about Quo Primum. It is discussing whether this law is, or to what extent, binding on future popes.

It becomes a discussion as to why PPV made it a law that for the Roman Rite, there could only ever be, one missal, hence one Mass "until another pope decides on a whim, otherwise" is the common thinking. But that thinking, according to QP, is error - because according to QP, only Pope St. Pius V's missal is to be used in perpetuity.   

Then Jayne brings up Quod a nobis (which I cannot find online), but trust it's language is as strong as QP just as she said. She brings up Pope St. Pius X's major revisions to the Roman Breviary which apparently did not effect the Sacrifice of the Mass of Pius V, but she mentions it because the force of the language is the same in each document.

Simply put, I do not see how there can be any comparison to what PPX did with what PPVI did. A few major differences that should immediately stand out between what PPX did to the Breviary and what PPVI did to the Mass, is that prior to publishing the revisions to the Breviary, PPX did what PPVI never did - he numerated reasons for the revisions *and* more importantly, he officially, explicitly abrogated Quod a nobis with his Apostolic Constitution, Divino Afflatu. With this abrogation, PPX made the whole thing licit. This clear, official abrogation from PPX is how we know the revisions to the Breviary were unquestionably legitimate. Being legitimate, they were not contrary to the law, therefore there can be no question - his revisions were not unlawful or illegal.     

Source
Therefore, by the authority of these letters, we first of all abolish the order of the psaltery as it is at present in the Roman breviary, and we absolutely forbid the use of it after the 1st day of January of the year 1913. From that day in all the churches of secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious, by all and several who by office or custom recite the canonical hours according to the Roman breviary issued by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII, we order the religious observance of the new arrangement of the psaltery in the form in which we have approved it and decreed its publication by the Vatican printing press. At the same time we proclaim the penalties prescribed in law against all who fail in their office of reciting the canonical hours everyday; all such are to know that they will not be satisfying this grave duty unless they use this our disposition of the psaltery.....

A poster at Catholic Answers asks the same question, looking for an online copy of Quod a nobis.  She says after St. Pius V gave the breviary the "in perpetuity clause" with Quod a nobis he himself modified it a couple of years later, and then St. Pius X did the same 250 years later.  And from your post Stubborn by quoting Divino Afflatu it was also revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=577690   

My husband has attended a SSPX chapel for Mass for the past two years. I attend a very orthodox church that offers the Novus Ordo Mass. He and I recently came across information regarding Quod a Nobis (sometimes referred to as Quod a Vobis or Quod a Vobix), a papal bull written by St. Pius V in 1568. It is my understanding that Pius V modified the Roman Breviary at that time and gave the "in perpetuity clause" (just like at the end of Quo Primum in 1570 regarding the Mass). The breviary was subsequently modified first by St. Pius V himself a couple years later, then by St. Pius X around 250 years later. Does anyone know where we could obtain a copy of Quod a Nobis? I have searched the internet, and I can only find references to it, not the actual text.

Another poster replies to her with a link to Quod a Nobis in Latin.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=-cXYqusIEx8C&dq=breviarium+romanum&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The above post from CA gives me the impression that St. Pius V was giving the "in perpetuity clause" just to the Mass in Quo Primum.  And not to the Mass and the Office.

Also the Catholic encyclopedia gives two different definitions for Liturgy, then goes on to describe the history of the Mass from apostolic times.  Again I believe St. Pius V was using the second definitions below for the Liturgy in Quo Primum.  Meaning just the Latin Rite Mass, and not the Office.

Liturgy
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm

...
We must now distinguish two senses in which the word was and is still commonly used. These two senses often lead to confusion.

On the one hand, liturgy often means the whole complex of official services, all the rites, ceremonies, prayers, and sacraments of the Church, as opposed to private devotions. In this sense we speak of the arrangement of all these services in certain set forms (including the canonical hours, administration of sacraments, etc.), used officially by any local church, as the liturgy of such a church — the Liturgy of Antioch, the Roman Liturgy, and so on. So liturgy means rite; we speak indifferently of the Byzantine Rite or the Byzantine Liturgy. In the same sense we distinguish the official services from others by calling them liturgical; those services are liturgical which are contained in any of the official books (see LITURGICAL BOOKS) of a rite. In the Roman Church, for instance, Compline is a liturgical service, the Rosary is not.

The other sense of the word liturgy, now the common one in all Eastern Churches, restricts it to the chief official service only — the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, which in our rite we call the Mass. This is now practically the only sense in which leitourgia is used in Greek, or in its derived forms (e.g., Arabic al-liturgiah) by any Eastern Christian. When a Greek speaks of the "Holy Liturgy" he means only the Eucharistic Service. For the sake of clearness it is perhaps better for us too to keep the word to this sense, at any rate in speaking of Eastern ecclesiastical matters; for instance, not to speak of the Byzantine canonical hours as liturgical services. Even in Western Rites the word "official" or "canonical" will do as well as "liturgical" in the general sense, so that we too may use Liturgy only for the Holy Eucharist.

It should be noted also that, whereas we may speak of our Mass quite correctly as the Liturgy, we should never use the word Mass for the Eucharistic Sacrifice in any Eastern rite. Mass (missa) is the name for that service in the Latin Rites only. It has never been used either in Latin or Greek for any Eastern rite. Their word, corresponding exactly to our Mass, is Liturgy. The Byzantine Liturgy is the service that corresponds to our Roman Mass; to call it the Byzantine (or, worse still, the Greek) Mass is as wrong as naming any other of their services after ours, as calling their Hesperinos Vespers, or their Orthros Lauds. When people go even as far as calling their books and vestments after ours, saying Missal when they mean Euchologion, alb when they mean sticharion, the confusion becomes hopeless.
...

I think the Office was just the traditional way of life for secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious; was it not?  I don't think the Office was the traditional way of life for the ordinary Catholic through the ages, although some did it.     

[Stubborn]

Yes, there was only one Roman Rite Missal, and of course those which were over 200 years old at the time of PPV's missal were permitted. We know this because that's what it says right in Quo Primum.

That is the law PPV made - even for popes. Popes need to follow protocol - especially when not doing so would cause worldwide scandal, as PPVI's new mass apparently on a whim, demonstrates. 

One pope, PPV, made a law fixing the liturgy for the Roman Rite and explicitly decreed it to be in force forever. That is all there is to it. No one, not even another pope can contradict PPV and replace his missal - at least not according to the law - not ever, and if they do, they act contrary to the law of PPV. Obviously, PPX knew this, hence his Divino Afflatu.

It's not at all complicated. It's actually very basic. 

[Stubborn]

I think the Office was just the traditional way of life for secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious; was it not?  I don't think the Office was the traditional way of life for the ordinary Catholic through the ages, although some did it.     

I remember a priest who was kicked out of his diocese brought it up, that was some 45 years ago so I don't know hardly anything about it, but PPX abrogated it, then published the version he made mandatory. He abrogated it because he had to because that's how that works.

It's not that the pope is bound to QP as if it is dogma - because that's not how that works. By all appearances, PPVI purposely did not abrogate QP for some reason. But certainly he had no reason to abrogate it because he had no real reason to replace it with the thing he replaced it with - and according to QP, what he did was contrary to the law. There simply is no getting around that fact no matter how much authority one chooses to bestow upon popes.