Quo Primum No Longer in Force

Missale Romanum was lawfully promulgated by Paul VI. In this Apostolic Constitution, while there can be legitimate inquiry and debate as to how it happened, we know that as a result Quo Primum is no longer in force, that Paul VI in the technical wording he used clearly revokes it's authority as the law of the liturgical land in the Roman Rite. As a result, the privileges that are there as a result of the legislation are currently not in force either. This is irrelevant to the question of if the Latin Mass was abrogated, orborogated, derogated, etc. The Latin Mass remained lawful under certain exceptions, and those exceptions over the years have been expanded. One's personal feeling on the law is irrelevant as to whether one should obey. (Indeed I was harshly critical of the way the Latin Mass was treated like the plague for almost 20 years, and is even still done so to a lesser degree today)

Quo Primum was issued with the first Roman Missal in 1570. The document to this day is printed at the front of what I will refer to as the Tridentine Missal, given it's origins. It should not be thought that this Missal was in any way a new Rite, but the codification of what was essentially already the liturgy of the wide variety of Europe, with the elimination of some excessive developments. The document itself is quite interesting and really should be read carefully and in its entirety.

This is true in a sense but also not entirely. All liturgies historically have had similar rubrics to follow. I.e there was an opening prayer, Scripture readings, a Creed, preparation for the sacrifice, the consecration, the offering of the Victim to God, Communion and a dismissal. Whatever the scope of it's differences, in many ways Quo Primum was a radical act, for it imposed upon an entire Rite, through papal legislation, a Rite that in many of these areas had no custom of its usage. This was done in many ways of combating the Protestant heresies that were running rampant throughout the Church, to provide a united front against them. There was never one unified Rite throughout the Latin Rite leading up to the Council of Trent. Some used the Roman Rite as prescribed in Rome, others used adaptations, still others used completely different Rites, as I'm sure Ian would agree. So while not a New Rite, Quo Primum was still in my view a "novel" display of power by the papacy, but a very necessary one given circumstances. Though I do not believe Ian to be arguing the idea that Quo Primum could never be revoked, I still wish to touch on this issue.

If Quo Primum was enacted to counter certain circumstances, then the inference must follow if such circumstances no longer exist, then the law can be changed. While some of them exist, in others they don't I believe. We start to see the beginning of this being acknowledged around the time of St. Pius X, who made what some considered at the time to be rather radical reforms, even if they are minute in our eyes. In promulgating a new Roman Breviary, he felt no need to specifically abrogate what Pius V promulgated, with many times the same sweeping language as Quo Primum. The only reason liturgical reform moved slower than Cardinal Sarto, the future Pope Pius X had wished was because other matters came about, most specifically the modernist heresy. The saintly Pope while doing some liturgical acts which are praiseworthy, also spent much time combating at length the errors of the modernists. I honestly think that had the modernist crisis not been around, we would've seen eventually such changes a lot earlier, though perhaps not in the sweeping manner we see in Missale Romanum, but such is a conjecture, and food for thought for a later debate.

I am not really certain if Ian believes that the Traditional Missal is an immemorial custom, and hence we can appeal to this. As much as it might be nice, unfortunately that dog will not hunt. As Fr. John Huels, a Professor of Canon Law at St. Paul University said in an advisory opinion:

It is correct that the general formula revoking the Tridentine Rite of Mass did not affect immemorial and centenary custom. However, the observance of the Rite of Mass of Pope Pius V was not a custom. It was imposed by law. A custom is introduced by the community (canon 23), whereas a law is introduced by the legislator. The use of the Roman Missal was decreed by universal law in 1570, and the Missal was revised in different ways by legislative acts of subsequent popes in 1604, 1634, 1888, 1920, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1964, 1965, and 1967. Although many of the ceremonies and details of the Mass of the Roman Rite largely developed through customs in the ancient and medieval Church, by 1570 the legal authority for the Rite of Mass was clearly that of papal law, not custom."

About the only place "immemorial custom" prevails is perhaps in Rome and nowhere else, since it did not grow organically, but was rather imposed. My colleague Ian had the following to say about Pius V's Quo Primum Tempore:

[Quo Primum] Uses specific canonical words to define this as a law ---- "No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition"

This much is certainly true, however, many of the same phrases as well appear in Missale Romanum. We first will once again establish that Paul VI clearly imposes an obligation according to the Mass and how it is to be celebrated:

We therefore point out, first, that a General Instruction, for use as a preface to the book, gives the new regulations for the celebration of eucharistic sacrifice. These regulations cover the rites to be carried out and the functions of each minister or participant as well as the furnishings and the places needed for divine worship.

We see here Paul VI sets down regulations for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Regulations must be followed. This makes Ian's idea that "there is no mention of any command in the document until the date given....." quite absurd. If one is putting forth regulations where elsewhere it says the whole Church is to follow, The Supreme Legislator is CLEARLY imposing an obligation upon the faithful.

While I am not certain if Ian believes this, many traditionalists fall back to the standard canard "well they weren't creating a New Rite." Yet Paul VI doesn't believe he is either, but rather making revisions to the same Roman Rite of his predecessors before him, starting with St. Pius V. Here we understand Paul VI's will and intent, and all laws must be interpreted according to the mind of the legislator here. This will be a sticking point here throughout my argumentation, and I believe it is a point that cannot be refuted, that Paul VI not only had the will to revise the Mass as had been done 11 times before this, but he made manifest his will publicly with very precise language.

(Palko) My claim here is that Paul did not promulgate a law that abrogated Quo Primum. There is no mention of a prohibition of the Tridentine Missal in any part of the document. There is no mention of any command in the document until the date given, which is in the wrong tense (past perfect instead of present). At the very most the "will" of the Pope is announced, but will does not make law, as could be said with Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae as regards the death penalty. He clearly manifets his will that it be never used except in extreme circumstances he says rarely exist. Such is a clear manifestation of his will, but certainly does not create a diciplinary law.

This is a false comparison for several reasons. Whether or not there was a date in the first edition, it appears in the Acts. John Paul II did not state that it was his will which needs to be effective, now and in the future, that the death penalty can only be used in rare cases, which are non-existent in todays society. Evangelium Vitae was not legislation, but rather an encyclical. Missale Romanum was most certainly a law promulgated governing how the Eucharistic Sacrifice was to be celebrated. John Paul II does not state that his view is firm and effective now and forever notwithstanding what everyone else has said, even if to the extent necessary. Ian is comparing apples and oranges here. For if the Revised Missal was to be celebrated after Missale Romanum, it had to follow what precepts laid down. For instance, one could not say that it was unlawful to use any of the new Eucharistic Prayers in the Revised Rite, because Missale Romanum explicitly said they could.

Ian also talks about there being nothing that "abrogates" Quo Primum. I never said there was. What I said was that one way or another, depending on what canonist you ask, Quo Primum is no longer in force. As I am no canonist, I will not go into the finer nuances of what happened, but the majority of canonists, and as we shall see Pope Paul VI interpreting his own words, state that The Old Missal and the legislation regulating it is no longer in force.

Another point Ian disputes is "there is nothing prohibiting the Tridentine Missal." Nobody is claiming that there is, and I think this needs to be stressed. There is a world of difference between the Missal, and the law which governs that Missal. Though the law which governs the Missal might no longer be in force, this did not mean the Missal was prohibited. Indeed, Paul VI allowed several exceptions. Let us return a bit more in-depth to the idea "there is no command." This is what I meant about precise wording. Paul VI uses several phrases, some of which will be outlined here:

We therefore point out, first, that a General Instruction, for use as a preface to the book, gives the new regulations for the celebration of eucharistic sacrifice...

But besides this, we have decided to add three new canons to the eucharistic prayer.

"And so, it is Our will that these words be thus said in every Eucharistic Prayer"

It is Our will that these laws and prescriptions be, and they shall be, firm and effective now and in the future.

We have ordered that the words of the Lord be one and the same formula in each Canon

We see the Pope giving an order, decreeing something, manifesting his will, and stating new regulations will be prescribed by the lawmaker. These kind of words are known to impose an obligation, and some of the same ones imposed an obligation in Quo Primum, especially when "Our Will" was used. Here the Pope is speaking as the Supreme Lawgiver, not merely stating his preference, but laying out his mandate and obligation. That obligation being that if you celebrate the Roman Missal, you celebrate according to these norms.

As far as nothing that revokes Quo Primum, if Ian means "by name" then this is certainly true. However, remember Paul VI's word's decreeing his regulations to be firm and effective now and in the future "notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment." That is Paul VI's will. The question is "What does "to the extent neccessary" mean? According to Fr. Huels, here is what Paul VI essentially meant, and he passes over "to the extent neccessary" as did the CDW in laying out Paul VI's wishes when the Editio typica was promulgated:

The constitution required the use of the newly revised Roman Missal and abrogated previous law that had required use of the Tridentine rite Mass. The pope declared that his constitution had the force of law "now and in the future," and he expressly revoked contrary law, including "the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving special mention and amendment." Moreover, the March 26, 1970, decree of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship promulgating the editio typica of the revised Roman Missal contained the phrase "Anything to the contrary notwithstanding." This general formula revokes: (1) all contrary universal laws; (2) all contrary universal customs, except those that are centenary or immemorial; (3) all contrary particular factual customs, but not particular legal customs observed for at least 30 years.

Allow me to propose a definition. If there be anything stated in Quo Primum (i.e the privelege of all priests to use this missal and nothing else) that contradicts Missale Romanum, then that privelege is revoked. We know that Pius V said the following in Quo Primum:

Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.

Obviously the missal revised by Paul VI and promulgated cannot be celebrated if this is still in force, since it is different "than that of this Missal published by Us." Therefore, that clause of Quo Primum one could say was explicitly revoked, since Missale Romanum cannot be "firm and effective now and forever" with that legislation still on the books.

In implementing Missale Romanum, the question did arise as to who could still use the "old Rite." The CDW, on mandate of Paul VI said that there were certain exceptions, and only these exceptions. As Fr. Huels notes, the 1970 instruction says that it promulgates a new edition of the Roman Missal, and in stating things are to be effective it says "all things to the contrary notwithstanding." They are acting on the direct mandate from the Supreme Pontiff. We see the same in the 1969 instruction, which we will get to later.

As far as Ian's citing of Fr. Dulac, I will admit I cannot argue against it, only because not enough is said. No reasoning is provided, none of the evidence and the mind of the legislator is presented, it may have, but as I do not have the book, I don't really see Ian's evidence stating much. I think we all agree that later proper dicasteries acting on the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff do revoke those priveleges. The question becomes is only the Pope allowed to revoke those priveleges?

While I will dispute that idea, let us assume for the sake of argument Ian is correct. It is now clear that Ian will not accept anything except from the horses mouth. While I believe my case states the plainly obvious, I shall grant his request. That being if Quo Primum were in some form revoked, then only the Pope could do so. Even in this area, with all due respect to my colleague, he is wishing against some painful realities, including the following from Pope Paul VI, which was published in the Acta, and hence is a matter of Church law. After decrying the ideas of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and those who wish to follow tradition by separating themselves from the Roman Pontiff (a view that Paul VI states can only lead to schism), the following is stated in a 1976 consistory, and I will bold the points that matter:

We must attach to this refusal to respect the liturgical norms laid down a special grievousness in that it introduces division where Christ's love has gathered us together in unity, namely, into the liturgy and the eucharistic sacrifice. For our part, in the name of tradition, we beseech all of our children to celebrate the rites of the restored liturgy with dignity and fervent devotion. Use of the old Ordo Missae is in no way left to the choice of priests or people. The Instruction of 14 June 1971 provided the celebration of Mass according to the former rite would be permitted, by faculty from the Ordinary, only for aged or sick priests offering the sacrifice without a congregation. The new Ordo Missae was promulgated in place of the old after careful deliberation and to carry out the directives of Vatican Council II. For a like reason, our predecessor St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, commanded the use of the Roman Missal revised by his authority.

In virtue of the supreme authority granted to us by Jesus Christ we command the same ready obedience to the other laws, relating to liturgy, discipline, pastoral activity, made in these last years to put into effect the decrees of the Council. Any course of action seeking to stand in the way of the conciliar decrees can under no consideration be regarded as a work done for the advantage of the Church, since it in fact does the Church serious harm. Pope Paul VI: Excerpts from an Allocution to a Consistory on Loyalty to the Church and to the Council, 24, May 1976: AAS 68 (1976) 369-378; Not 12 (1976) 217-223

I honestly believe this soundly dismisses the sources Ian has cited. For on his side he has two canonists. On the opposing side we have the Supreme Pontiff in An Apostolic Constitution, 4 statements from the CDW, and the authentic interpretation of the Supreme Pontiff's words by the Supreme Pontiff himself. The restrictions he placed on the Tridentine Missal were relaxed in 1984 and further relaxed by Ecclesia Dei in 1988. The words of Paul VI are why the documents from John Paul II assume it as established fact that the rite of the Old missal and it's usage is reserved to the Apostolic See and the local ordinaries faithfully following the guidelines for granting permission of this Missal. Therefore we not only have the Supreme Pontiff (the supreme legislator) but the appropriate congregations as well saying the same thing. With all due respect, Ian has no case. The idea that either Capponi is dishonest or the document doesn't say what I say it is, to put it frankly, is a straw man. Capponi could simply be mistaken, and the Ecclesia Dei Commission has ruled that unless a Bishop provides an Indult, the Latin Mass cannot be celebrated lawfully. This was the commission setup by JPII to oversee these manners. Capponi would not be as bold to argue that he ends up being right in every case he has argued before Rome.

Yet the words are not certain themselves, at least two prominent Canonists indicate they are not. If you couple with that the alleged "Stickler" Cardinals conviened in 1986 to answer the question we have here too (Stickler says all 9 Cardinals agreed that any priest had the right to say the Tridentine Mass, and 8 said Quo Primum was not abrogated)

As I pointed out to Ian, and I will reiterate, The Commission said the Latin Mass was not prohibited. It was not dealing with Quo Primum, except to say that Paul VI was not bound by it, and didn't outright suppress the Latin mass, but NOT because of Pius V's words. And I agree. Paul VI allowed licit use of the Missal under certain conditions, albeit restrictive ones, which were later broadened. Keeping existing and new evidence presented in mind, we will not examine Ian's argumentation in "Addressing the Documents."

Recall that my one of my arguments what that prominent Canonists, who knew of these documents still hold that the New Rite is not imposed absolutely. I also cite the Council of Nine Cardinals called by the authority of Pope John Paul II in 1986. Cardinal Stickler, who says he was one of the Cardinals, tells us the group unanimously made the determination that any priest could licitly celebrate Mass using the Tridentine Missal, and eight of the nine agreed that Missale Romanum did not abrogate Quo Primum.

We now see that not only did the proper authorities in the CDW give this command, but as well as the Supreme Pontiff who stated that the New Missal REPLACED the Old Missal, and the only way the Old Missal could be used lawfully was by certain conditions, not by the individual whims of priests. Yet Let me offer more clarification on the Stickler Commission. While Ian has posted a correction, I think it still serves to quote everything here.

The answer given by eight of the cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. Only one was against. All the others were for the free permission: that everyone could choose the old Mass. That answer the Pope accepted, I think; but again when some bishops' conferences became aware of the danger of this permission, they came to the Pope and said, "This absolutely should not be allowed because it will be the occasion, even the cause, of controversy amongst the faithful." And informed of this argument, I think, the Pope abstained from signing this permission. Yet, as for the commission -I can report from my own experience- the answer of the great majority was positive.

There was another question, very interesting. 'Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?' The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition not because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever. Those words of Pius V were common for an important decision of the Pope. He always said, "This is valid forever." But this was not a theological, it was not a dogmatic statement, this decree of the Pope promulgating his Tridentine Mass order. And so it could be changed by his successors....

In Italian, they say that one pope gives the bull and another takes the bull again, that is, he can change the disposition of his predecessor...

So what about a bishop forbidding the Mass in the case of a priest or a whole dioceses? You must realize that a bishop is the only one who has responsibility for his dioceses....Bishops have no jurisdiction over their colleagues. A bishop in his dioceses, for his dioceses and his subjects, can find the arguments to forbid it. He can say, "This is disturbing to the peace in the dioceses."

It is necessary to notice that the privilege is given to the bishops, not the faithful. So a bishop can use the privilege or not.

The question is not does Missale Romanum abrogate Quo Primum as Ian suggested, but rather was the Latin mass supressed. As I said before with the permissions given, it clearly was not. The question itself asked was if a priest in good standing could be forbidden from saying the Latin mass ever again. Of course the answer is no, since the indult could be granted if the Bishop chooses to, if he believes it will give a practical good to his diocese. Since the New Missal replaced the old, and the CDW said that Revised Missal is to be the normative Missal, and Paul VI stated it was not up to individual priests to decide to use this, the decision falls to the Bishops, and this is reinforced in Ecclesia Dei and the 84 Indult. So Ian's idea that the Tradiitonal Rite was never completely forbidden is a straw man. It proves nothing, since I agree with him on that point. What I have said is that there are restricitions on how that Mass may be celebrated, and we find two Popes and the CDW agreeing with me on this.

Ian - This is the first hint of any obligation to say the New Mass. The problem here is that the CDW, even if as Kevin claims is acting "with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff" cannot obligate priests to use the New Mass unless Quo Primum is abrogated, not simply derogated. The problem is that the CDW assumes this was done.

There is a reason why the CDW assumes this was done. Because it was. :) They were simply applying what the will of Paul VI was, and what Paul VI said he did with Missale Romanum. This was reinforced several times later, including in the 1976 consistory presented as evidence in this posting. This is why they were acting on mandate from the Supreme Pontiff, because this is what the Supreme Pontiff did when he said "notwithstanding to the extent neccessary."

Ian - The other problem is that this conflicts with the other part of the document cited. First it is decreed when the new rite and new text is to be used, then it is left up to the bishop conferences, not to be delayed beyond a certain different day, then the part about the bishops conference is repeated sine die. Huh? Which is it? What is the decreed date here or is there one?

As I said, there were certain problems getting vernacular translations ready, hence the target date had to be moved back. For those who could not meet the target date, they were given additional time to get everything in order. This in no way changes the force of the law, but rather how quickly it was to be applied. When everything was in order, then this is what the law was.

And if Kevin claims the CDW isn't but Paul did in his Constitution we are back at the original question again!

Which we now see that Paul VI did do this. I was previously unaware of the text until it was raised to me by a colleague, but even then, the obvious has already been stated time and time again, and only one looking for a loophole would find ones Ian is finding. However, given recent evidence which confirms not only what I have said, but what those statements from the CDW have said, any loophole Ian wishes to find is now effectively closed. So yes brother, slam dunk indeed.

"Here this is the first indication of Papal Approval, but as I stated before, this assumes the abrogation of Quo Primum and of the immemorial custom of the Tridentine usage."

While not to beat a dead horse, his understanding of universal custom has been demonstrated as flawed. Universal customs do not arise as a result of papal legislation imposing them, but rather something that grows locally, and is given the sanction of custom after a certain time. Even then, the Supreme Pontiff can revoke such customs, which "all things to the contrary notwithstanding" or something along those lines does. We see from the CDW, and Paul VI himself stating this was done. As a result, the house of cards Ian has raised in regards to his novel interpretation of Quo Primum has collapsed.

The rest of the exchange goes over the same faulty reasoning. Ian wrongly assumes the argumentation that I argued the Tridentine Missal was completely prohibited. As I stated, there were exceptions, those exceptions expanded. He wrongly assumes that usage of the Tridentine Missal as a result of Quo Primum is an immemorial custom. He wrongly assumes that Paul VI did not set Quo Primum and the Old Missal aside. He wrongly assumes that Paul VI's intention was different than that of St. Pius V. According to Paul VI, he is doing the same thing, hence the mind of the legislator is readily estabilshed.

Ian - We may have four "interpretations" here, or at least four statements and possibly one interpretation, but none are without doubt, because they all rely on an assumption of law, which is the question Kevin is trying to prove his correctness on.

This assumption of law was common knowledge, and was constantly reiterated from the first clause of Missale Romanum in 1968 up until Ecclesia Dei in 1988. The only argument that Ian has is I was assuming what I was attempting to prove. While I deny this, it can now be said that even if I did, that is not the case now, as I have presented the very mind of the Legislator on this, stating what he did, that is the New Missal replaced the Old one, and that the Old one can only be used under certain conditions. I repeat the call I said earlier: Ian has no case, and stands refuted on almost every point he has raised.

*More from Tierney

Musings on the Liturgy:Quo Primum and the Latin Mass

In any discussion of the status of the Latin Mass or liturgical reform, most traditionalists will always bring up Quo Primum. They will state that because Quo Primum gave priests a right "in perpetuity" to celebrate the Roman Missal which St. Pius V codified, that the New Mass is illegal. When talk of the Indult comes about, they will claim that no indult is necessary. A surface reading of St. Pius V's words seem to demonstrate this. He states in Quo Primum back in 1570:

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. ...

Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

The argument common to many in the Society of St. Pius X and other traditionalists is that since the Latin mass currently requires permission from the local ordinary, that Paul VI and John Paul II have violated the legislation of their saintly predecessor. Since they have done so, they shall incur the wrath of God and the Apostles Peter and Paul. The latter assertion is simply ridiculous, as it refers to the altering of this notice. As Paul VI did not alter what Quo Primum said, obviously he cannot incur the Apostle's wrath. As to the former, was Paul VI bound by Quo Primum? The answer quite simply is no, since Paul VI revoked Quo Primum.

This debate gets a little technical, nobody disputes this. There are several canonical nuances over the status of the Latin Mass and it's suppression or lack thereof. Quite frankly, 99% of the people who write on that issue have no competence whatsoever. I will state that I don't believe the Traditional Rite was abrogated and leave it at that. What can be certain is that the legislation which governed the celebration of the Traditional Mass is no longer in force. That's a distinction with a difference. When Traditionalists go around stating "The Pope can't suppress the Latin Mass" it's more a red herring. The revoking of Quo Primum does not revoke the Mass of the Roman Rite. It existed before Quo Primum, and existed afterwards. What it revokes is the legislation that all churches in the Roman Rite must celebrate the Missal Pius V mandated they celebrate. In place of that legislation, we have Missale Romanum from Pope Paul VI, which promulgated the Missal most Catholics are familiar with today in their celebration of Mass.

Many Traditionalists will counter that Paul VI did not revoke Quo Primum or actually promulgate the Novus Ordo With Missale Romanum. In the Acts of the Apostolic See where you find Missale Romanum, it is entitled the following:

Apostolic Constitution. By which the Roman Missal, restored by decree of Vatican Ecumenical Council II, is promulgated. Paul, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, for an Everlasting Memorial

It logically follows that what Paul VI is going to say is promulgated for an everlasting memorial. While the statement is not identical to Quo Primum's "in perpetuity" the wording is similar. As one looks throughout Quo Primum and Missale Romanum, we find they are similar, if not identical in many aspects. QP will symbolize Quo Primum, MR Missale Romanum.

MR: "Apostolic Constitution. By which the Roman Missal, restored by decree of Vatican Ecumenical Council II, is promulgated. Paul, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, for an Everlasting Memorial

QP: 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.

MR: We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.

QP: 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.

QP: It is Our will, therefore, and by the same authority, We decree that, after We publish this constitution and the edition of the Missal, the priests of the Roman Curia are, after thirty days, obliged to chant or read the Mass according to it; all others south of the Alps, after three months;

MR: The effective date for what we have prescribed in this Constitution shall be the First Sunday of Advent of this year, 30 November.

=-` Did Pius V impose an obligation upon the Church when he said that it is my will that at this time the following be done? If he did, then so did Paul VI, who said that all he had outlined in Missale Romanum was to take effect by November 30th. Did Pius V impose an obligation when he said that this Missal was to be celebrated, " 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"? Did Pius V have to name specifically what was no longer in force? There are some traditionalists who claim that since Paul VI did not name Quo Primum specifically, it is not abrogated. The fact that Quo Primum is mentioned several times as an apostolic constitution of Pius V makes it clear what Paul VI has in mind. After mentioning and giving a brief history of Quo Primum and the history of liturgical reform as he saw it, he stated that his legislation was now firm and effective now and forever, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment. That is the same language Pius V employs. Pius V enacts his legislation as overriding all the authority of his predecessors, no matter what they did. Paul VI uses the same terminology, but for some reason that terminology works for one Pope, not another. It's a rather interesting standard.

Now, just because one exercised his authority lawfully does not mean he necessarily should have done it. People are free to believe that Missale Romanum and it's imposition were not prudent. One of the biggest black marks on this entire situation was that in the implementation of Paul VI's wishes, the Latin Mass which had been celebrated in every parish in the Roman Rite since 1570 was demonized and marginalized, where something which one day was holy was then looked upon with utter contempt and hatred. An unfortunate consequence of this was the schism of the SSPX. This is in no way meant to justify their position, but the manner in which this law was implemented marginalized many Catholics whose only desire was to celebrate as their parents did, or in the case of others, to not change things so rapidly. Such an act generated a mountain of mistrust from which traditionalists still receive, even those who go out of their way to promote loyalty to Rome, they are looked upon with scorn, suspicion and in some cases downright hatred by Bishops and other Catholics. While the atmosphere has began to change with Ecclesia Dei in 1988 and the erecting of the Fraternal Society of St. Peter, things are still nowhere near what they should be. Though it must be stated that when traditionalists make argumentation such as that we have just covered, they do not help things. They decide themselves which laws of the Church they need to obey and which they are free to reject. That is not a true fidelity to the Roman Pontiff, it is a fidelity of convenience. There are some who rightly see the absurdity of this position within the traditionalist schools of thought, but who recognize this can't be. They then erroneously conclude that the Pope's we have had are not true Popes. As one of them said when discussing the subject of Quo Primum and how many traditionalists are selective in their obedience. After demonstrating at length the utter absurdity of the position of the SSPX and others, he states:

You therefore consider yourself bound by the law, because those responsible for interpreting it told you so. You then submit to the pope's law.

That, at least, is how a real Catholic — one for whom a pope is more than a cardboard wall decoration, or an empty phrase in the Te Igitur — is supposed to act. Fr. Anthony Cekada, Did Paul VI Illegaly Promulgate the New Mass?

How are we to act in light of this, even if we have reservations about the prudence of the enactment of that law. St. Alphonsus di Ligouri, when discussing the suppression of the Jesuits (of which they were suppressed "in perpetuity") had the following to say:

Poor pope! What could he do in the circumstances in which he was placed, with all the Sovereigns conspiring to demand this Suppression? As for ourselves, we much keep silence, respect the secret judgment of God, and hold ourselves in peace

*Mr. Tierney, although I don't agree with all of his opinons, has pointed out the facts clearly. It will be much more difficult for the sspx and its supporters to effectively argue otherwise.

It would seem that Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz thinks establishing a parallel canonical Old Rite jurisdiction is a good idea:

Conciliation And Reintegration

Q. What do you think about the possibility of a canonical structure similar to the Eastern rite Catholic churches in U.S. dioceses for Traditional Latin-rite Catholics?

Bishop Bruskewitz: I think that could serve a very good pastoral purpose to have some kind of arrangement, where there would be in the words of the Pope, this generous opportunity.

I think part of it, though, is there is a lot of ideological division. There are those who feel that the Tridentine rite, Ecclesia Dei indult is merely a transitional stage until these people get over it. There are those people, including even in the hierarchy, who feel that this is just a temporary expedient.

I disagree with them. There are even other more conservative people who say that once we get the Novus Ordo cleaned up, we will have no need for this. This puts a heavy burden on the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and others. I don't think the Church should be held hostage, for example to the Lefebvrite demands — "You must do this or else." I don't think that is very sensible in any way.

On the other hand, I think that conciliation and reintegration into the body of the Church for the Tridentine rite [is desirable and possible].

For years the Latin rite has had sub-rites. There is the Ambrosian rite in Milan. There is a Mozarabic rite in Toledo in Spain. The religious orders had all kinds of rites. The Dominicans had their own rite. And they were all little variants that arose because the evolution of the liturgy took place and these things were maintained in orders. So I don't see that it is not possible to have a sub-rite. As a matter of fact, it might be one of the reasons we don't understand what's going on right now.

We're in the middle of the disintegration of the Latin rite. You have drum beating in Africa and you have lots of bowing in Japan. This inculturation is really making a sub-rite division of the Latin rite. For centuries, rite depended primarily on language. You had the Byzantine rite divided into the Serbian, the Russian, and all the different [other languages]. I think the fact we have vernacularized means there is a division. The unification of the Latin rite, if it is going to be maintained as a unit, will probably depend largely on the Tridentine rite, indult-type celebrations.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/060201

The liturgical renewal in our own century took up this alleged model and developed from it a new idea for the form of the liturgy. The Eucharist – so it was said – had to be celebrated versus populum (towards the people). The altar – as can be seen in the normative model of St. Peter’s – had to be positioned in such a way that priest and people looked at each other and formed together the circle of the celebrating community. This alone – so it was said – was compatible with the meaning of the Christian liturgy, with the requirement of active participation. This alone conformed to the primordial model of the Last Supper.

These arguments seemed in the end so persuasive that after the Council (which says nothing about "turning to the people") new altars were set up everywhere, and today celebration versus populum really does look like the characteristic fruit of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal. In fact it is the most conspicuous consequence of a re-ordering that not only signifies a new external arrangement of the places dedicated to the liturgy, but also brings with it a new idea of the essence of the liturgy –the liturgy as a communal meal.

Misunderstanding the Meaning of the Meal

This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate. Consider, for example, what Louis Bouyer has to say on the subject:
The idea that a celebration facing the people must have been the primitive one, and that especially of the last supper, has no other foundation than a mistaken view of what a meal could be in antiquity, Christian or not. In no meal of the early Christian era, did the president of the banqueting assembly ever face the other participants. They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a C-shaped table, or of a table having approximately the shape of a horse shoe. The other side was always left empty for the service. Nowhere in Christian antiquity, could have arisen the idea of having to ‘face the people’ to preside at a meal. The communal character of a meal was emphasized just by the opposite disposition: the fact that all the participants were on the same side of the table (Liturgy and Architecture, pp. 53-54).

In any case, there is a further point that we must add to this discussion of the "shape" of meals: the Eucharist that Christians celebrate really cannot adequately be described by the term "meal." True, Our Lord established the new reality of Christian worship within the framework of a Jewish (Passover) meal, but it was precisely this new reality, not the meal as such, which he commanded us to repeat. Very soon the new reality was separated from its ancient context and found its proper and suitable form, a form already predetermined by the fact that the Eucharist refers back to the Cross and thus to the transformation of Temple sacrifice into worship of God that is in harmony with logos...

Unprecedented Clericalism and the Self-Enclosed Circle

Admittedly, these connections were obscured or fell into total oblivion in the church buildings and liturgical practice of the modern age. This is the only explanation for the fact that the common direction of prayer of priest and people got labeled as "celebrating towards the wall" or "turning your back on the people" and came to seem absurd and totally unacceptable. And this alone explains why the meal – even in modern pictures – became the normative idea of liturgical celebration for Christians. In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest – the "presider," as they now prefer to call him – becomes the real point of reference for the whole liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing.

Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the "creative" planning of the liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, "make their own contribution." Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a "pre-determined pattern."

The turning of the priest towards the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.--Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) "The Spirit of the Liturgy

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.