FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it? (/showthread.php?tid=56651)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6


What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it? - TraditionalistThomas - 07-17-2012

???


Re: What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it? - pbmsemwa - 07-17-2012

It was only relevant in 1554! :LOL:


Re: What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it? - cgraye - 07-17-2012

What's the point of anything if a later pope can just abolish it?  Usually popes don't just abolish things without a serious reason.

The point of Quo Primum was to promulgate the 1570 edition of the Roman Missal and to make its use mandatory throughout the Latin Church (except where there were liturgies in use that were at least 200 years old), because, as the document itself states, "It is most becoming that there be in the Church ... only one rite for the celebration of Mass."  The point was to get some consistency.  And to forbid any changes to it by anyone else so that that consistency could actually be achieved.  This was particularly important in light of the Protestant Reformation.


Re: What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it? - Mithrandylan - 07-17-2012

Read <i>Quo Primum</i> again, brah.  It can't really be "abolished." 

Quo Primum Wrote:Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Well, unless you want the bolded to happen.  Which seems to have, judging by the state of the Church.

http://www.fisheaters.com/quoprimum.html


Re: What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it? - JayneK - 07-17-2012

The point was to prevent bishops and priests from changing the Mass because only a pope has this authority (and even the papal authority has some limits).  This teaching is echoed in Mediator Dei by Pius XII.  I suggest that you read this encyclical to understand the answer to your question.

link to MD http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html


Re: What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it? - Mithrandylan - 07-17-2012

(07-17-2012, 10:22 AM)JayneK Wrote: The point was to prevent bishops and priests from changing the Mass because only a pope has this authority (and even the papal authority has some limits).  This teaching is echoed in Mediator Dei by Pius XII.  I suggest that you read this encyclical to understand the answer to your question.

link to MD http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html

That's true in a certain respect, but the main problem was that when the mass was changed it was changed to something not Catholic.  The Sarum rite at the time had incorporated certain practices that weren't according to the rubrics but they had a foundation in tradition and could not be confused with another religion so they were allowed.  What Cranmer did was take the mass and make it something completely different, something not altogether Catholic.  The "point" of <i>Quo Primum</i> was to enforce a Catholic liturgy on the Church from the highest position, the papacy.


Re: What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it? - JayneK - 07-17-2012

(07-17-2012, 10:35 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 10:22 AM)JayneK Wrote: The point was to prevent bishops and priests from changing the Mass because only a pope has this authority (and even the papal authority has some limits).  This teaching is echoed in Mediator Dei by Pius XII.  I suggest that you read this encyclical to understand the answer to your question.

link to MD http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html

That's true in a certain respect, but the main problem was that when the mass was changed it was changed to something not Catholic.  The Sarum rite at the time had incorporated certain practices that weren't according to the rubrics but they had a foundation in tradition and could not be confused with another religion so they were allowed.  What Cranmer did was take the mass and make it something completely different, something not altogether Catholic.  The "point" of <i>Quo Primum</i> was to enforce a Catholic liturgy on the Church from the highest position, the papacy.

Your claim is a matter of some controversy and it has already been debated extensively here.  You may therefore be aware that, while I am willing to acknowledge the Novus Ordo as flawed, deficient or problematic, I reject claims that it is not Catholic.

However, it is much too hot to have this argument yet again.  I think I will go over to Pig Roast and do a fluff post.


Re: What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it? - Richard C - 07-17-2012

(07-17-2012, 10:49 AM)JayneK Wrote: However, it is much too hot to have this argument yet again.  I think I will go over to Pig Roast and do a fluff post.

Haha, I have been doing likewise of late. Didn't make the connection with the weather. The heat index is over 100 here today. Again.


Re: What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it? - Parmandur - 07-17-2012

It was to prevent local ordinaries from making their own Liturgy, which previously had been their right.


Re: What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it? - Phillipus Iacobus - 07-17-2012

Quote:I am willing to acknowledge the Novus Ordo as flawed, deficient or problematic

How flawed, how deficient, and how problematic?