Some thought provoking material on erroneous popes and the efficacy of radical changes to the Liturgy January 12, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, persecution, Revolution, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
Via Eponymous Flower, an interesting statement from Cardinal Juan de Torquemada, brother of the more famous Cardinal Tomas Torquemada, both of Spain:
“…..the Pope could, without doubt, fall into Schism . . . Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. . . . Thus it is that Innocent states (De Consuetudine) that, it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed . . .
Tancred then links to this paper at Catholic Apologetics, which argues that St. Pius V’s declaration in Quo Primum, that the Mass he codified and regularized after the Council of Trent – which was absolutely nothing more than a process of codifying the long-extant Roman Liturgy as the normative Liturgy for the entire Church, and eliminating a handful of relatively new liturgies that had developed in the preceding 200 years – was the Mass offered by the Church since ancient times and which would remain codified as such, as a formal decree binding on all Catholics for all times upon pain of excommunication. It is absolutely vital to note that Pius V did not “invent” or bawlderdize the extant Mass as offered in most of Christendom – he instead regularized all the prayers as offered in Rome (but also most other locales) as the normative form of the Mass for all time going forward. The vital quote from Quo Primum is this:
…….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…….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 therein.
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 that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever 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 200 years.
So…….the TLM will always be a valid Rite of the Mass, it may always be offered by any priest and assisted at by any faithful, and, more importantly, that no one can be forced or coerced to offer or assist at any Mass other than the Mass codified by St. Pius V under pain of excommunication. Also, anyone who tries to alter the Mass is violating a direct papal command carrying the penalty of excommunication.
Ever since Vatican II and especially the unleashing of the Novus Ordo, there has been great argument as to how the binding decree of Pius V could possibly be reconciled with the massive, totally unprecedented changes inflicted on the Mass with the Novus Ordo. I am not throwing out the brief excerpt below as a definitive stand, but more as a starting point for discussion, consideration, and further study*:
Quo Primum is a solemn papal decree binding on the Church “in perpetuity” and condemning any whom would depart from it, as the pope indicated.
First, in issuing the solemn decree, the pope is carrying out the decrees of a dogmatic council. Second, the Mass contains much essential doctrine (remember: lex orandi legem credendi statuit). Third, the Traditional Roman Rite of Mass is not an exceptional rite, but the universal rite of the Church, being the rite of the See of Rome. The pope was simply restating the 16-century Sacred Tradition of the Church in this case. [Quo Primum made the TLM as we now know (roughly, there were changes in the 50s) the official Mass for the Western Church. It permitted other ancient Rites, like the Ambrosian and Mozarabic, but codified the ancient Roman Rite, used in probably 90% of all parishes in western Christendom, as the official Rite going forward. It did NOT invent a new Rite, it didn’t cobble together a Mass differing from the one before, and thus there is really no such thing as a “Tridentine” Mass, meaning one that was put together at, or as a result of, the Council of Trent, as the Novus Ordo was an ostensible implementation of the changes “demanded” by Vatican II (it wasn’t, it went infinitely beyond what Sacrosanctum Concilium indicated)]
At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. Thus it can be said that the refusal of the new liturgy and adherence to the Traditional Mass, the suspension and any canonical pain are invalid in virtue of the Bull Quo Primum of St Pius V which give to all priest the perpetual right to celebrate the Mass of “St Pius V” and declares null and void any censures against a priest who celebrates this Mass”. [This is a very strong statement, but is it contrary to the intent of Quo Primum? If not, then what?] Further St. Puis V would not have made us of the severe condemnatory language that is used in Quo Primum if he were making some minor editions but rather it is because he was binding for all eternity the Mass of the Roman rite.
We must not wrongly think that Pope Pius V was “binding” something new. He was simply acknowledging that he was bound, as all popes are, by the Sacred Tradition of the Church. The fallacy that may be made is the “Tridentine Mass” idea. There is no essentially “Tridentine Mass.” What is being talked about is the Latin (Roman) Mass of Sacred Tradition, as it was said at the Roman See, in essence from the beginning, but basically in the form we know it since at least the 6th century, and in most parts even earlier. Pope St. Pius V, was not introducing a new Mass; he was canonizing the Roman Mass which has been handed down to us from the Apostles. To further confirm this venerable Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) himself said in response to a request that he add the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass, “I am only the pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?”
Lets us not forget that when Pius V wrote “in perpetuum,” he knew exactly what he meant by those words:
“By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum can never be revoked or modified, St. Pius V infallibly defined that Quo Primum is of itself irreformable. –Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div.
Further is the fact that this issue can be compare with the Gelasian decree in which the fourth century Pope attempted to name for all time which books constituted scripture and which did not. Was he attempting to bind all his successors to the same set of Biblical books? (Of course he was!) Could a later pope validly change that list by adding new books to scripture, or deleting any long accepted New Testament writings? (Of course not!) [Awesome point. When are we going to see modernists try to incorporate Gnostic drivel into the Canon of Scripture? One almost wonders why they haven’t tried……]
……….In addition to Quo Primum, two other documents have traditionally been printed at the front of every approved Roman Missal: Pope Clement VIII’s Cum Sanctissimum (1604) and Pope Urban VIII’s Si Quid Est (1634). Although both of these papal bulls renew the censure of excommunication imposed by Pope St. Pius V, neither of them contains this most grave imprecation……..
Now there are certain counter-arguments: the Mass must be allowed to organically develop, the Mass was of course updated with new propers for the feasts of new Saints, there were very rare and very minor changes made prior to the 1950s, etc. But what was wholly novel about the Novus Ordo was its creation, out of whole cloth, its abandonment of vast swaths of prayers used in the Mass since the most ancient times (in particular, the sacred Canon), and its radical changes not only to the calendar of Saints but to the entire set of readings used for centuries. Many of those readings had been in use for 1300, 1400, even 1500+ years. Never in the history of the Church had a Pope or Council arrogated to themselves the right to totally remake the Mass.
My primary reason for linking to the article and posting an excerpt is this: Pope Benedict never fully defined the rights of priests associated with the TLM in his Motu Proprios liberalizing its use (and very rightly so, as the TLM was not, and never could nor can be, rightly “abrogated”). The primary weakness in his Motu Proprios Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae is this: he did not address the situation, which likely should have been foreseen, that priests who started offering the TLM might come to love it, and, even more, recognize the grave deficiencies in the NO, and thus arrive at a conclusion, from the deepest reaches of their conscience, that they could only, in good faith and for the good of souls, offer the TLM.
Given the great force of the binding decree promulgated by St. Pius V, its reiteration by subsequent popes like Blessed Pius IX, and the fact that the TLM has been confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI as a form of the Mass fully equal in right to the Novus Ordo, it seems to me that demands by bishops that priests NOT offer the TLM, or only do so in a limited manner, are invalid and unjust, or at least, that a very strong argument could be made in support of that position. This is an argument I hope to flesh out more over the coming weeks and months.
*- I fully recognize that this whole matter of the validity of the grave novelties associated with the Novus Ordo is as complicated as it is dangerous. I advise readers not to get too excited by anything they read, nor jump to any great conclusions. It’s not a very far walk from contesting the validity of the Novus Ordo to declaring that popes have engaged in formal heresy and are thus invalid. Please don’t take me for supporting anything of the kind.