What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it?
#31
(07-17-2012, 04:35 PM)JayneK Wrote: I'm saying that many of the Masses, as in the text of Mass, that Quo Primum removed were flawed and defective per se yet still Catholic.  It did not mean that the Church was not the Church or the Pope was not the Pope.  It meant that the flawed Masses needed to be abrogated and they were.

You're just making this up.  There were no flawed and defective masses being celebrated before Quo Primum, in the sense that the prayers used were heterodox, or savoured of heresy, or that the Offertory was misisng, or that tradition elements such as "the mystery of faith" were juxtaposed with "Christ is Risen" etc. in order to give a false impression, etc.  There was no Arian Canon, as the original N.O. had, there was no heterodoxy at all.

What Quo Primum did was establish uniformity with Rome in the liturgy. 

Archbishop Lefebvre, when questioned by the CDF in 1979, said he didn't know if the Novus Ordo had truly been promulgated by Paul VI.  That's how "problematic" it is to believe that it came from the Church.  It didn't come from the Church, that much is certain.

Reply
#32
(07-17-2012, 09:53 PM)John Lane Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 04:35 PM)JayneK Wrote: I'm saying that many of the Masses, as in the text of Mass, that Quo Primum removed were flawed and defective per se yet still Catholic.  It did not mean that the Church was not the Church or the Pope was not the Pope.  It meant that the flawed Masses needed to be abrogated and they were.

You're just making this up.  There were no flawed and defective masses being celebrated before Quo Primum, in the sense that the prayers used were heterodox, or savoured of heresy, or that the Offertory was misisng, or that tradition elements such as "the mystery of faith" were juxtaposed with "Christ is Risen" etc. in order to give a false impression, etc.  There was no Arian Canon, as the original N.O. had, there was no heterodoxy at all.

What Quo Primum did was establish uniformity with Rome in the liturgy. 

Archbishop Lefebvre, when questioned by the CDF in 1979, said he didn't know if the Novus Ordo had truly been promulgated by Paul VI.  That's how "problematic" it is to believe that it came from the Church.  It didn't come from the Church, that much is certain.
THIS
Reply
#33
My question - if Quo Primum absolutely forbids major changes to the Missal, then how can the changes to the Breviary by St. Pius X, Pius XII and Bl. John XXIII be tolerated, since Quod a nobis, which promulgated the Tridentine Breviary, uses much of the same language, even calling down the wrath of almighty God and the apostles on those who act contrary to it?  This situation is not really analogous to subsequent editions of the Missal which merely included new feasts or minor rubrical changes; while unassailably Catholic in spirit, the changes made by Divino Afflatu are in some respects quite radical.  Every prior papal attempt at reform of the Breviary, whether executed or not, left the ordo psallendi of Pius V untouched.  The reformers studying the question under Benedict XIV ultimately decided that the Psalter had to be left untouched to avoid an intolerable break with tradition - the language of Quod a nobis does not seem to even warrant a mention.

But even restricting discussion to the Missal, subsequent popes modify the Missal frequently without the slightest scruple about violating Quo primum.  Though no one actually argues that inserting new feasts in the Kalendar violates Quo Primum, why doesn't it?  What language in the bull suggests the Missal may be modified?  And besides the insertion, suppression and moving of feasts, what about changes in rank, introduction of new ranks and rubrical changes?  At what point is the perpetually valid bull violated?

It seems to me that the simplest answer is that the Pope is not and cannot be bound by the ecclesiastical laws of his predecessors, no matter how impressive the language a particular bull uses.  The fact that St. Pius V's successors immediately set about reintroducing feasts suppressed by the sainted Pontiff certainly indicates that they had little scruple about their own authority in matters liturgical.
Reply
#34
(07-17-2012, 11:39 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: It seems to me that the simplest answer is that the Pope is not and cannot be bound by the ecclesiastical laws of his predecessors, no matter how impressive the language a particular bull uses.  The fact that St. Pius V's successors immediately set about reintroducing feasts suppressed by the sainted Pontiff certainly indicates that they had little scruple about their own authority in matters liturgical.

That's right.  A great deal is made of the strong language, which only shows that people have never seen any other papal bulls.  The language is boilerplate, found in numerous documents, many of which have been abrogated completely.
Reply
#35
(07-17-2012, 01:59 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 01:43 PM)Dusty_Bottoms Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 01:37 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: Jayne, how can you defend your choice to assist at a rite you wish was scrapped?  I know how.  Badly, that's how.  Listen to Stubborn.  Don't let what happened to Vetus happen to you.

Complete non sequitur.  Vetus had the exact opposite opinion as Jayne regarding assisting at the N.O.  If anything, your point would support the proposition that refusing to admit the lawfulness of the N.O. leads to spiritual shipwreck.

Exactly.  I go the the TLM whenever possible and to the NO when it is necessary to fulfill my obligations because I accept the authority of the Magisterium.   Vetus ended up going months on end without attending Mass because he preferred his own judgment to that of the Magisterium.  He then moved to placing his judgment first in questions like Marian dogmas.  Deprived of spiritual nourishment and rejecting Church authority, his fall is hardly surprising.

Some excellent points here Jayne.  Unfortunately Vetus is a perfect example of the very real danger to "stay at home Catholics."
Reply
#36
(07-17-2012, 11:44 PM)John Lane Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 11:39 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: It seems to me that the simplest answer is that the Pope is not and cannot be bound by the ecclesiastical laws of his predecessors, no matter how impressive the language a particular bull uses.  The fact that St. Pius V's successors immediately set about reintroducing feasts suppressed by the sainted Pontiff certainly indicates that they had little scruple about their own authority in matters liturgical.

That's right.  A great deal is made of the strong language, which only shows that people have never seen any other papal bulls.  The language is boilerplate, found in numerous documents, many of which have been abrogated completely.

This. The decree of Clement XIV suppressing the Jesuits states that it is "perpetually valid" but Pius VII overturned it.

C.
Reply
#37
Quote:I'm saying that many of the Masses, as in the text of Mass, that Quo Primum removed were flawed and defective per se yet still Catholic.

You won't be able to provide any examples of "flawed and defective per we yet still Catholic" Masses becuase the Church is infallible and indefectible. I believe that you are simply stating this to preserve the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Reply
#38
(07-17-2012, 09:53 PM)John Lane Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 04:35 PM)JayneK Wrote: I'm saying that many of the Masses, as in the text of Mass, that Quo Primum removed were flawed and defective per se yet still Catholic.  It did not mean that the Church was not the Church or the Pope was not the Pope.  It meant that the flawed Masses needed to be abrogated and they were.

You're just making this up.  There were no flawed and defective masses being celebrated before Quo Primum, in the sense that the prayers used were heterodox, or savoured of heresy, or that the Offertory was misisng, or that tradition elements such as "the mystery of faith" were juxtaposed with "Christ is Risen" etc. in order to give a false impression, etc.  There was no Arian Canon, as the original N.O. had, there was no heterodoxy at all.

Here is the Missale Carthussiense http://web.archive.org/web/2007092703181...siense.pdf

The Offertory as we know it is missing, although there is a trace of it.  It is not heterdox, but then, I don't think the NO is either.
 
(I think this responds to Crusader Philly's post, as well.)
Reply
#39
(07-17-2012, 03:47 PM)Stubborn Wrote: The sound quality is not the greatest but, as usual, Fr. Wathen explains and goes into detail as regards Quo Primum and the new mass.

http://www.fatherwathen.com/558.html

This explains alot about your perspective.  I am really not sure how you can call yourself Catholic, at least a practicing one....
Reply
#40
Te Mass of Pope Paul VI is a valid, Catholic Mass.  To think otherwise is basically saying that Paul VI really wasn't a pope, or any of his successors, for that matter.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)