Papal Bull - Quo Primum

True Catholic ^ | July 4, 1570 | Pope St. Pius V

[Land of the Irish]

No, I won't. It was a big mistake on my part. I had never visited that sight before. It was a result of a quick search for Quo Primum. Mea Maxima Culpa.

[patent]

The Pope (this one, JPII) must indeed consider himself "bound" by this, because he has NOT forbidden the Tridentine liturgy and in fact has ordered that it be made available as requested and that priests not be forbidden to celebrate it.

That is poor reasoning. He thinks he is bound because he has not forbidden it? It does not follow. I think he allows it out of a pastoral sense that it will benefit those souls attached to it. I think he said as much. That hardly implies any belief he is bound.

The fact that this is not done is because the Modernist bishops forbid it and, in so doing, are disobeying not only St. Pius but JPII.

No, they only disobey JPII, but that in itself is more than a sufficient scandal.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

but I most certainly do not stand with you or your incorrect interpretation of his words any more than I stand with a Lutheran and his incorrect interpretation of the Bible.

I don't dare interpret St. Pius' Bull. I take it at face value.

At face value? What part of it uses your words “I'm just stating that St. Pius said that the codified Mass at his time could not be forbidden in the future [by any Pope] to any priest wishing to celebrate it."

Please show me what words “at face value” support your claim “St. Pius said that the codified Mass at his time could not be forbidden in the future to any priest wishing to celebrate it.” Show me where he infallibly made this idea of yours dogma, because if it isn’t dogma, it is discipline, and it does not bind future Popes.

Let the Lutherans practice YOPIUS and you neo's go ahead a practice YOPIUT(the "T" is for Tradition).

Um, it isn’t my tradition. I’m clinging to the Barque of Peter. You are the one on your own here.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

Don't post from this guy's site again. It just gives them a reason to think we're nuts, and help turn people off from the Church.

If the person is arguing Quo Primum bound future Popes liturgically, I think you need to rephrase that to read “It just gives them ONE MORE reason to think we’re nuts.”

patent  +AMDG

[ultima ratio]

Oh, but you do stand with the Lutherans. All the time. They have inspired the Novus Ordo Mass which supports their Protestant theological perspective.

As for Quo Primum, it has never been officially abrogated. Priests are nevertheless routinely punished, for daring to say the traditional Mass. This is an injustice of the first order--never rectified by those who rule the present madhouse.

[ultima ratio]

The Church certainly needs saving.

[ultima ratio]

It is well known JPII asked a synod of cardinals whether the Traditional Mass had ever been abrogated and was told it had not. So any priest has the absolute right to say it without permission from his ordinary. Most don't realize this--just as you apparently don't.

[ultima ratio]

Getting testy again? You people can't discuss an issue without calling somebody names. But at least you didn't try "schismatic." That's worn out.

[Land of the Irish]

Um, it isn’t my tradition. I’m clinging to the Barque of Peter. You are the one on your own here.

I guess St. Pius and I missed your boat.

Happy sailing.

[ultima ratio]

Q: does the Papal Bull Quo Primum enjoy infallibility?

"It is a liturgical and disciplinary law of the most solemn kind. However, it does not have the infallibility of the Extraordinary or Solemn Magisterium of the Church, for it is not a dogmatic definition.

"Nevertheless, it is perfectly true to state that it participates in the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, in an indirect manner. I say in an indirect manner, for underlying the whole decree are the unchanging truths of the Catholic Faith concerning the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, renewing in an unbloody manner the sublime act of worship accomplished on Calvary. Inasmuch as the purpose of the Bull is to protect these dogmas from the corruptions introduced by the heretics, denying such dogmas as the Real Presence, and inasmuch as these dogmas have always been taught in the Church, it shares in the infallibility of the Church’s doctrinal teaching. It is in this sense that universal liturgical and disciplinary laws in the Church are infallible (cf. Vacant, Le Magistère Ordinaire, p.109).

"Clearly this does not apply to the 'promulgation' of the New Mass, if it ever were promulgated. The reason is that the ideas behind the reform are heterodox novelties, and not at all what has always and everywhere been taught in the Church. They are consequently in no way guaranteed by the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium." [Answered by Father Peter R. Scott]

[Catholicguy]

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding. 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

<> I'm a little confused here. A Pope Pius could command obedience to a New Rite, but a Pope Paul can't? Doesn't that make the prior Pope more powerful than suceeding Popes and doesn't that render nugatory the Infallible Dogma of the Papal Power?

[Catholicguy]

<> Was Peter a Saint?

Was the Mass he said in Latin

Sorry, you lose....