The Jurisdiction of the Bull Quo Primum

This article was first published in the Supplement to Itineraires No. 162, and is taken in part from Pope Paul’s New Mass by Michael Davies, pp.571-580, which is available from ANGELUS PRESS

This final statement leads us to a question which affects each and every legislative disposition of the Bull: to what extent can a Pope bind his successors? This is a great and delicate question, which will be limited in this instance to the case under discussion. It is obviously not a question of the Pope as interpreter of the Divine Law, which is immutable, but of the Pope in respect of ecclesiastical law.

Here one principle stands out: "Par in parem potestatem non habet": Equals have no power over each other. No one, therefore, can constrain his equals. This is particularly true of the supreme power. This is essentially the same power exercised through its different holders. It is necessary to give the most careful consideration to the full import of this principle. If a pope (to speak only of the highest religious authority) has the power to loose what another pope by the same power has bound, then he should use this right only for the gravest possible reasons: reasons which would have prompted his predecessor to revoke his own law. Otherwise, the essence of supreme authority is itself eroded by successive contradictory commands.

When philosophers discuss "divine power" they make use of a distinction which is infinitely more applicable in the case under discussion: what God can do in virtue of "absolute power" and what He can do in respect of His "regulated power." 2

The matter has not been decided when one can say, for example: "Paul VI could validly abrogate the Bull of Saint Pius V." It remains to be shown that he is doing so legitimately.

Now this matter of lawfulness touches the very form and foundation of the new law –in the first place, involving the question of the mutability of law itself. Divine law contains the proof of its own universality and immutability within itself. But ecclesiastical law, like all human law, must add supporting evidence to its intrinsic proofs, even if this evidence is of the most obvious kind –purely conventional to begin with, but which by public consent eventually prevents the law from becoming arbitrary and artificial.

As to the form, the Bull Quo Primum possesses all the conditions necessary for perpetuity. We have adequately demonstrated this by illustrating the terms used by the legislator.

The aim in view, which is that there, should be but one missal so that the unity of Faith may be protected and manifested by unity of public prayer.

The method of its establishment, which is neither that of an artificial creation devised from a number of possibilities nor even a radical reform, but the honest restoration of the ancient Roman Missal: the honest restoration of a well-proven past being the best guarantee of a tranquil future.

Its authorship, which is that of a pope acting with all the force of his Apostolic authority, in exact conformity with the express wish of an Ecumenical Council –in conformity with the uninterrupted tradition of the Roman Church –and, so far as concerns the principal parts of the missal, in conformity with the Universal Church.

Each of these characteristics taken separately, and still more when taken together, assure us that no pope can ever licitly abrogate the Bull of Saint Pius V, even if we admit that he can do so validly and without betraying either the Deposit of Faith or any fundamental law of the Church.

It seems indisputable to us that Pope Paul VI has not, in fact, made any such abrogation, even if one thinks only of the legal formulas that would be required, and which are lacking in his Act.

Unfortunately, however, it seems equally indisputable that Pope Paul VI does favor the de facto abolition of the Roman Missal, whether by deliberate will, or connivance, or tolerance, or by constraint due to obscure pledges from which he cannot free himself –or which make him their prisoner.

Four and a half years ago, publicly and in writing, we gave our first counsels concerning the reasons for, and legitimate means to be used in, resistance to the liturgical revolution authorized by the reigning Pope. It was in September 1967, two years before the "promulgation" of the new Ordo Missae, but at a time when the portents of revolution were so clear as to confer upon the ordinary priest and layman the right and duty of such resistance. Since then we have had occasion to reassert that position. Had it been erroneous or a source of scandal, it is unbelievable that neither the Holy See, nor the bishops, nor their "theologians," should not have condemned or at least refuted the arguments put forward. It is equally incredible that to date (January 1972) the author has not once been called upon to retract them.

First Rule: The Missal of Paul VI cannot be said to be obligatory in any strictly juridical sense which would impose its use and exclude that of the "Roman Missal restored by the decree of the Council of Trent and published by order of Saint Pius V."

Second Rule: The Bull Quo Primum Tempore of Saint Pius V has not been totally abrogated by the Constitution of Paul VI, Missale Romanum, of 3 April 1969. At most, Pope Paul’s Constitution derogates only certain particular details of the Tridentine Missal which will not be discussed in detail here.

Third Rule: Even if it is supposed that these derogations of Pope Paul are strictly obligatory, the fact remains that they leave intact the three privileges contained in the Bull of Saint Pius V, which have not been expressly abrogated by the present Pope, and express abrogation is required by the principles of law.

The right of every priest to avail himself of the perpetual privilege discussed in Section V above.

The right of every priest to use, in preference to the Missal of Paul VI, the Tridentine Missal, which ratified a custom developed over the 15 preceding centuries and the centuries which followed.

The freedom of Religious to keep the missal of their Order, or to use that of Saint Pius V, in preference to the Pauline missal. (N.B.: Religious belonging to Orders with their own missal have a right to demand that their chaplain should use their own missal even if he does not wish to do so).

As a consequence, the faithful too have the right to partake of the first two freedoms, through their priests on whom these freedoms have been directly conferred. They may, therefore, legitimately ask their priest or their bishop to insure that Masses are regularly celebrated in the Tridentine rite.

We are so certain of this doctrine that we feel able to add this final recommendation: If –and God forbid –any superior of whatever rank should presume to deny to priests, religious, or faithful the exercise of these rights, they may and should denounce to the competent authority, by every legitimate means, this infraction of the Bull of Saint Pius V, as an Unlawful Abuse of Their Authority.

Contrast with Pope Paul’s Missale Romanum, particularly in regard to its Non obstant section.

Fr. Dulac is probably referring to the Summa Theologica, I. Q.25, A.5, ad 1. While God has the power to do anything, once He has willed to do it in a certain manner, and no other, He necessarily excludes other options, e.g., having made the human soul immortal, His power to annihilate it is naturally regulated or "ordered" by this decision. He could not annihilate something which He had intended to be immortal without contradicting His original intention. God’s "regulated power" is His power as submitted to His wisdom. Fr. Dulac wishes us to see the papacy as a continuing office and to appreciate that only the gravest possible reasons could compel such a manifest self-contradiction as the granting of a perpetual privilege by one incumbent, and its revocation by a successor.

Upon our elevation to the Apostolic throne We gladly turned Our mind and energies, and directed all Our thoughts, to the matter of preserving incorrupt the public worship of the Church; and We have striven, with God’s help, by every means in Our power to achieve that purpose.

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.

We resolved accordingly to delegate this task to a select committee of scholars; and they, having at every stage of their work and with the utmost care collated the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and reliable (original or amended) codices from elsewhere, and having also consulted the writing of ancient and approved authors who have bequeathed to us records relating to the said sacred rites, thus restored the Missal itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this production had been subjected to close scrutiny and further amended We, after mature consideration, ordered that the final result be forthwith printed and published in Rome, so that all may enjoy the fruits of this labor: that priests may know what prayers to use, and what rites and ceremonies they are to use henceforward in the celebration of Masses.

Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply moreover even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever; saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over two hundred years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See’s institution and confirmation of the church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than two hundred years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid. Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to this rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered there in.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or, possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, howsoever ancient, which they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, 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. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than two hundred years.

Consequently it is Our will, and by the same authority We decree, that one month after publication of this Our Constitution and Missal, priests of the Roman Curia shall be obliged to sing or to read the Mass in accordance therewith; others south of the Alps, after three months; those who live beyond the Alps, after six months or as soon as the Missal becomes available for purchase.

Furthermore, in order that the said Missal may be preserved incorrupt and kept free from defects and errors, the penalty for nonobservance in the case of all printers resident in territory directly or indirectly subject to Ourselves and the Holy Roman Church shall be forfeiture of their books and a fine of 100 gold ducats payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury. In the case of those resident in other parts of the world it shall be excommunication latae sententiae and all other penalties at Our discretion; and by Our Apostolic authority and the tenor of these presents. We also decree that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to take delivery of such books without Our approval and consent, or without express permission of the Apostolic Commissary in the said parts appointed by us for that purpose. Each of the said printers must receive from the aforementioned Commissary a standard Missal to serve as an exemplar for subsequent copies, which, when made, must be compared with the exemplar and agree faithfully therewith, varying in no wise from the first impression printed in Rome.

But, since it would be difficult for this present Constitution to be transmitted to all parts of the world and to come to the notice of all concerned simultaneously, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, at those of the Apostolic Chancery, and at the end of the Campo de’Fiori; moreover We direct that printed copies of the same, signed by a notary public and authenticated with the seal of an ecclesiastical dignitary, shall possess the same unqualified and indubitable validity everywhere and in every country that would attend the display there of Our present text. 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.

Given at Saint Peter’s, Rome, in the year of Our Lord’s Incarnation one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourteenth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

You are guilty of everything you accuse me and the others of.

Hardly.

To: Polycarp

It would not be safe to assume anything.

#1)On 1st May, 1991, Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii "excommunicated" certain Catholics of his diocese for attending SSPX Masses and receiving a new Society Bishop for confirmations. Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, overturned this decision:

"From the examination of the case... it did not result that the facts referred to in the abovementioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity." (June 28, 1993).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#2) 68 But there is not even disobedience - cf An Open Letter to Confused Catholics p 129-136. Cf "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act." Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law - in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988

19 posted on 01/20/2003 5:32 PM EST by Scupoli

To: Scupoli

It would not be safe to assume anything.

True, it is not safe to assume your quotes have sufficient context

CONGREGATION PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI DECREE
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
The following is the entire declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the case of the so-called "Hawaii five"-as expressed in the case of one of the five, Patricia Morley. I note that this document has received wide publication already and is therefore not in the least confidential:
On July 3, 1991, Mrs. Patricia Morley had recourse to this Congregation against the Decree of the Bishop of Honolulu issued May 1, 1991.
His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Anthony Ferrario, with aforesaid Decree, declared Mrs. Morley excommunicated on the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the "latae sententiae" penalty as provided for in Canon 1364 §1 of the Code of Canon Law.
This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner, though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism.
Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the "latae sententiae" penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which is founded.
This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Prefect

You bring to my attention a matter of importance. You asked if I could tell you what exactly I said in the interview of 10th July 1988. The substance of what I said is as follows:'In the case of Lefebvre and the four priests consecrated bishops by him, there are two offenses canonically speaking, that they have committed. The fundamental offense is that of schism, that is, refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and breaking communion with the Church. This offence they had already previously committed. Only that, now, the second offense, that of consecrating bishops, formalizes, in a certain sense, and concretizes the first, and makes it explicit. Schism is a delict which can be personal. It does not require having a number of people. Individuals can do it on their own. Lefebvre and his followers, inasmuch as they refused submission to the Pope, were already, by that fact itself, in schism. The intent of the act of consecrating bishops is already to create a church with its own hierarchy. In this sense, the consecration of bishops becomes an act of schism. One should keep in mind, however, that the act of consecrating bishops is not in itself a schismatic act. In fact, in the Code, where offenses are treated, these two are treated in two distinct headings. There are delicts against religion and the unity of the Church. And these are apostasy (i.e. renouncing the faith), schism and heresy. Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate is, on the other hand, an offense against the proper exercise of one's ministry. For example, there was an excommunication of the Vietnamese Archbishop, Ngo Dinh Thuc in '76 and '83 for an episcopal consecration, but it was not considered a schismatic act because there was no intent to break with the Church. Ngo Dinh Thuc represents a pitiable situation, as there is some mental imbalance. With regard to Econe, Lefebvre and the four priests, they are under two excommunications: one for the offense of schism, the other, reserved to the Apostolic See, for the offense of consecrating a bishop without a pontifical mandate.' I hope that this is helpful for you.
Cardinal Lara to John Beaumont, May 26th, 1993.

29 posted on 01/21/2003 9:15 AM EST by Ethan Clive Osgoode

It is not at all clear that popes have authority over the Divine Liturgy. Many of the greatest liturgists have questioned this assumption since the Divine Liturgy involves dogma as well as worship.

Here is Klaus Gamber: "Since there is no document that specifically assigns to the Apostolic See the authority to change, let alone abolish, the traditional liturgical rite; and since, furthermore, it can be shown that not a single predecessor of Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman liturgy, the assertion that the Holy See has the authority to change the liturgical rite would appear to be debatable to say the least."

Gamber does not deny popes have the right to make incremental, minor, changes. Popes such as Pius XII have acknowledged this in such encyclicals as Mediator Dei. But as that encyclical points out, the traditional Mass had evolved over millenia under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How can it be that radical change should not be considered blashpemous? There is no precedence for what was done.

It is known that even Gregory I faced a rebellion among the faithful when he changed the language of the Hanc Igitur only slightly. Many sought to kill him for it, so agitated were they by even minor alterations in the liturgy. Imagine how our forefathers would have reacted to such a complete revolution in worship.

You state that "denying Papal authority over the discipline of the Liturgy does make one schismatic." This is on the surface an absurd statement and very mischievous. Was Gamber a schismatic? Since when has this ever been a doctrine of the Catholic Church? Where had this new teaching ever been formally promulgated? You state as well that even denying that "Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it [the new Mass] does make one schismatic."
This is complete and total nonsense.

You people have a genius for finding schisms growing on trees. Catholics have the right to question anything to do with this issue. They have the absolute right to think as well as to obey and not be browbeaten by those whose faith is the papacy itself and not the Catholic Church. This is especially true at a time like this when apostates have control not only over many powerful dioceses in the Church, but also over many chambers in the halls of the Vatican.

Protocol n° 947/99/L

Unofficial English Translation of the original Italian text

Letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship to the Most Rev. Gaetano Bonicelli, Archbishop of Siena, June 11, 1999 ,P> On the Celebration of the Traditional Liturgy

Protocol n° 947/99/L

Most Reverend Excellency,there has arrived at this Dicastery Your letter of April 12th, in which You posit a question on the liberty to use the "Missale Romanum" promulgated by St. Pius V after the Council of Trent on the part of each priest who desires it, basing such action on the "perpetual" liberty of the Motu Proprio which promulgated the Missal, on July 13, 1560.

Since such a question has begun to be solved with the publication of the present "Missale Romanum", and since this Congregation is not without the competence to shed some light on this rising problem, our response will limit itself to recalling the essential facts.

Although in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI, one does not find an explicit formula abrogating the Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, it is however clear that the will of the supreme Legislator is to promulgate a renewed text of the "Missale Romanum" which would take the place of the one which was up until that time in use. If the will of the Pontiff would have been to leave in force the preceding liturgical form as an alternative to be freely chosen, it would have to say so expressly. Things being as they are and in the light of the documentation which followed, such as regards praxis, one ought to assert that the "Missale Romanum" prior to the Second Vatican Council is no longer in force as an alternative to be freely chosen by those same members of the Church who appertain to the Roman Rite. After the liturgical renewal undertaken by the Second Vatican Council, there appeared groups of Catholics strongly attacking the liturgical books, above all the Missal, now in use. These groups, and we speak of those in full communion with the Catholic Church and with Her Magisterium, have expressed the desire to be able to continue to utilize the preconciliar liturgical books. The Holy Father John Paul II, moved by paternal desire of meeting the liturgical and religious sensibilities of these groups, has conceded to them the ability to utilize the "Missale Romanum" published in 1962, with the authorization of the Bishop of the locale; and He has likewise asked the Bishops to welcome with benevolence and generosity these persons who feel profoundly bound to the preconciliar rite and, at the same time, who profess a sincere adhesion to the Magisterium of the Church and obedience to the legitimate Pastors. The desire of the Pope was expressed by means by the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei adflicta" (July 2, 1988: AAS 80 [1988] pp. 1495-1498). On the tenth anniversary of the publication of the Motu Proprio, the Holy Father has reinforced the general orientations of this document in the Discourse he pronounced on October 26, 1998 (L'Osservatore Romano, October 26-27, 1998, p.8).

And so, these are the answers to the questions of Your Excellency:

Q. "Can every priest use the Tridentine Missal without any permission, given that St. Pius V assured them a faculty in this regard in perpetuo."

A. No, since the "Missale Romanum" given by St. Pius V is to be held to be no longer in force. As regards the obligation of the "Missale Romanum" in use today, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship published a notification, which appeared in Notitiae 10 (1974) p.353. For comparison one can refer to canon 6, §1, 4°, of the Code of Canon Law (1983) in harmony with can. 19.

Q. "Can the Pope publish [bloccare] a rite in perpetuo?"

A. No. In "The Power of the Church regarding the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist", the Council of Trent expressly declared: "this power has perpetually been in the Church, so that in the dispensation of the Sacraments, apart from their substance, She might judge to establish or change those things, which for the utility of those undertaking them or for the veneration of the Sacraments themselves, according to the variety of things, times, and places, would be more expedient." (DS 1728)

From a canonical viewpoint, one must say that, when an Pope writes " ...We perpetually concede ", one must always understand "until otherwise it be provided." It belongs to the sovereign authority of the Roman Pontiff to not be constrained by merely ecclesiastical laws, still less by the disposition of His own Predecessors. Besides being bound by the very constitution of the Church, He is bound only by the immutability of the Divine and Natural Law. Moreover, if in addition to the Motu Proprio of St. Pius V, which has been cited, one looks at the Apostolic Constitution (April 3, 1969) with which Paul VI has promulgated the "Missale Romanum" which is now actually in force, we find the following words: "These things by our ... prescription now and after, firm and efficacious, We wish to be and to remain [fore], not withstanding ... the Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations published by Our Predecessors, and all other prescriptions even those worthy of particular mention and derogation."

It is clear that the authority of the Council or of the Roman Pontiff has not come to be excised in an arbitrary manner, rather it has always present the good of the Church.

Q. "What answer can I give on the point of law?"

A. To the above expounded facts, one can add, the benevolent concession of the Indult to utilize the preceding "Missale Romanum" in the terms and according to the manner indicated in the mentioned Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei adflicta". If, in Your Diocese, there were a group of persons who desired to celebrate with the rite in force up until the post-conciliar liturgical renewal, Your Excellency can give authorization according the faculty conceded by the Indult of this Congregation on October 3, 1984 (Notitiae 1985, pp. 9-10).

These can assume diverse possibilities:

a) To appoint a Mass in a church or oratory, at a fixed time, on Sunday or on a weekday, without prejudice to the faithful who follow the present Missale Romanum. b) To assign to the faithful attached to the preceding arrangement a church or chapel, either in an exclusive manner, or a partial one.

c) On the condition that the group would be numerous, there is also the possibility to establish for them a chaplain (see Code of Canon Law, cann. 564-567, 571-572), or even also a personal parish ( see canon 515 , §1), as has been the case in some diocese of the United States of America or in Canada.

This is what I am able, after a due consultation, to respond to Your Most Reverend Excellency.

I take the occasion to offer You cordial greetings and to profess the same, with a sense of distinct obsequium, as Your Most Reverend Eminence

Jorge A. Card. Medina Estévez, Prefect

Sac. Mario Marini, Secretary

<> The Curia speaks in the name of the Pope. So, ifn'ya don't likke the fact that Quo Primum is kaput, run off and start yer own church; you know, like Lefebvre did.

Just call yourself a "tradtionalist" and, magically, you are elevated to a superior status over those occupying the Divinely-Constituted Chair of Authority.

Who the hell do they think they are anyway? Who died and resurrected and made then Pope?<>

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.