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.

1) Since Popes have authority over discipline, any Eucharistic Liturgy they promulgate ---if it has the proper matter and form--- is by its very nature Valid and Licit.

No Pope is bound in disciplinary matters by previous Popes.

1) Popes have authority over discipline. The Liturgy is a matter of discipline. As such, changes in discipline are prudential judgements, and not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error. However, since Liturgy is the primary means of catechesis in Faith and Morals, such changes are grave matters. And criticism of these prudential decisions is valid BUT can only be undertaken knowing that such criticism itself is a grave matter and should only be undertaken by those with a deep enough understanding of these issues that their criticism itself does not cause scandal or lead the innocent into schism or disobedience where obedience is due.

3) These are difficult times. Simply questioning and searching, honestly, does not make one a schismatic. Questioning the link between the current grave scandals and the changes in the Church since Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo mass does not make one a schismatic, though some conclusions drawn may clearly and onjectively be incorrect.

5)Denying Papal authority over the discipline of the Liturgy does make one schismatic.

6) Denying the Novus Ordo is valid and licit and orthodox or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it does make one schismatic.

7) Questioning the fruits of the Novus Ordo, the quality and quantity of its catechesis, and pointing out where and when it becomes illicit or invalid is not schismatic.

8) Questioning the prudential judgement of the Pope can be done charitably in some circumstances but most often lately such questioning has itself been imprudent.

For more see Catholic Caucus: "Guidelines" re: discussions of Liturgy, other prudential decisions?

Siobhan's post on that thread is pertinent too:

1) A Catholic Caucus on FreeRepublic should have a clear focus on fostering the Culture of Life vis-a-vis the political, governmental, and legal order in the United States. (This should be our principal effort on this forum.)

2) A Catholic Caucus on Free Republic should be absolutely loyal to the Pope and the Magisterium. Areas of concern (such as the confab in Assisi) should be discussed first with an eye to understanding the Holy Father's actions and teaching and second to look to the relevant Vatican congregation which prepared the event or issue of concern.

3) A Catholic Caucus on Free Republic should establish its own kind of "Neverending Story" Thread where Catholics, SSPXers, assorted sedevacantists and others can duke it out to their hearts content.

4) A Catholic Caucus on FreeRepublic should engage in direct Catholic action to oppose the lavendar mafia, Catholics for a Free Choice, Dignity, Call to Action, We Are Church, and any other AmChurch efforts or enterprises hellbent on destroying the Church.

5)A Catholic Caucus on FreeRepublic should respond to any issue or crisis facing the Church from the viewpoint of "building up the Church" and exposing sin, canonical violations, apostasy, and sheer evil.

6)A Catholic Caucus on FreeRepublic should post threads which build up our spiritual and devotional lives as Catholics and threads that educate us about the suffering, persecuted Church abroad.

Thread topic: The Jurisdiction of the Bull Quo Primum

My response:

1) Popes have authority over discipline. The Liturgy is a matter of discipline. As such, changes in discipline are prudential judgements, and not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error. However, since Liturgy is the primary means of catechesis in Faith and Morals, such changes are grave matters. And criticism of these prudential decisions is valid BUT can only be undertaken knowing that such criticism itself is a grave matter and should only be undertaken by those with a deep enough understanding of these issues that their criticism itself does not cause scandal or lead the innocent into schism or disobedience where obedience is due.

2) Since Popes have authority over discipline, any Eucharistic Liturgy they promulgate ---if it has the proper matter and form--- is by its very nature Valid and Licit.

No Pope is bound in disciplinary matters by previous Popes.

3) These are difficult times. Simply questioning and searching, honestly, does not make one a schismatic. Questioning the link between the current grave scandals and the changes in the Church since Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo mass does not make one a schismatic, though some conclusions drawn may clearly and onjectively be incorrect.

5)Denying Papal authority over the discipline of the Liturgy does make one schismatic.

6) Denying the Novus Ordo is valid and licit or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it does make one schismatic.

7) Questioning the fruits of the Novus Ordo, the quality and quantity of its catechesis, and pointing out where and when it becomes illicit or invalid is not schismatic.

8) Questioning the prudential judgement of the Pope can be done charitably in some circumstances but most often lately such questioning has itself been imprudent.

Your question:

How does your preaching relate to the topic of this thread?

Please at least try to pay attention.

3) A Catholic Caucus on Free Republic should establish its own kind of "Neverending Story" Thread where Catholics, SSPXers, assorted sedevacantists and others can duke it out to their hearts content.

Amen to that! I'm as 'schismatic, quasi-Jansenistic and pharisaical' an Orc as they come and even I want to see some balance restored in the Caucus.

A Neverending Story thread is the best place to debate these issues on an ongoing basis instead of clogging the place up with endless posts on The Eternal Subject!

"As such, changes in discipline are prudential judgements, and not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error."

That bears on our discussion on the other thread wrt Satan deceiving men in the Church heirarchy.

IMO, errors have been made.

"...that their criticism itself does not cause scandal or lead the innocent into schism or disobedience where obedience is due."

The razor's edge.

"Questioning the link between the current grave scandals and the changes in the Church since Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo mass does not make one a schismatic, though some conclusions drawn may clearly and onjectively be incorrect."

As I have remarked before, the differences between the two camps here don't seem to me sufficient to justify all the rancor.

"Questioning the fruits of the Novus Ordo, the quality and quantity of its catechesis, and pointing out where and when it becomes illicit or invalid is not schismatic."

Perhaps the laity should go further than that in urging the Holy Father to put things right. These current scandals seem at last to have gotten him off the dime wrt homosexual clergy; perhaps a quiet mutiny among the faithful would wake him up wrt liturgical abuses.

"Questioning the prudential judgement of the Pope can be done charitably in some circumstances but most often lately such questioning has itself been imprudent."

Those who care deeply are often passionate.

In reading your posts it is difficult to sift the wheat from the chaff.

Now that you have sifted it, (it shouldn't be too tough, as you apparently have been blissfully wading through deep schismatic chaff for quite a while) how about commenting on it, and the thread I linked to.

If you read my comments here and on that thread, you just might realize that I have been a defender of traditionalists' rights to question fruits and prudential judgements, within reason.

By the way, you pinged me to this thread.

I obligingly posted my comments on the thread topic.

You criticized me and upped the ante with ad hominems. I clarified that I had already indeed posted my comments regarding the thread topic, and reposted them.

I notice that you have yet to debate my comments, either here or on the other thread. There I pointed out your error in trying to make an equivalence between the personal opinion of a Cardinal expressed in a magazine article, and an official decree of the Roman Catholic Church by which another Cardinal, speaking in an official capacity for the Church and the Pope, formally excommunicated Lefevre.

In that case too, you simply resorted to ad hominem, instead of discussing my response.

You ping me to a thread, accuse me of lacking clarity in my clear response to your thread topic, then engage in ad hominem when you do not like my response.

Don't ping me to a thread in the future if this is typical of your idea of "debate," OK?

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.