The changeability of Quo Primum

[PeteC]

From the thread on Can the Church give us an evil liturgy

I have a pre-opinion on it anyway (obviously!)  but I'm interested in hearing how people who support the idea that it is unchangeable (and even infallible) explain these things

1. That the formulae of Quo Primum are used in several other Papal documents, liturgical and non-liturgical which have been overturned.

2. That changes have been made to the missal since then(before the new Paschal Vigil and subsequent changes). For example:
- reinserting feasts removed by St. Pius V
- changing, numbering, etc. the rubrics. The rubrics after all control all aspects of the Mass- for example, the saying of the preface of Trinity on most Sundays would put the Mass celebrated at variance with how it would be according to the missal of St. Pius V
- changing existing texts- for example, changing Masses for Popes, changing texts in the Common of Blessed Virgin Mary, changing the seasonal commemorations, changing secrets and Postcommunions, and so on.
- inserting new texts: new Commons, new Masses for saints and mysteries in the life of the Bl. Vrigin Mary, new prefaces
- Reworking the calendar (including the drastic changes of St. Pius X which also removed some 150 feasts from the "pro aliquibus locis" and relocated several others there)

Basically what I'm trying to understand is what excuses these changes from the "nothing added, nothing omitted, nothing changed"?

3. Why did Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani, etc. not object if changes to the missal are blatantly against Quo Primum. Surely they would have been aware of it, if this was the case?

[spasiisochrani]

Obviously Pius V did not prohibit himself or his successors from authorizing changes to the Missal.  He only prohibited the making of changes without proper authority.

[AdoramusTeChriste]

I thought it was just the Canon that was the unchangeable part. I am certain that my mother's (+ rip) old St. Joseph Daily Missal stated that the unchangeable part of the Mass is the Canon. I've had to put her missal up because it is so well worn that the pages are literally disappearing. Maybe someone else can provide a source.

[MagisterMusicae]

Pete,

If I may, permit me to add a bit to your questions here.

First, could we please look at all aspects of Quo Primum? As I see it seven main things are granted/promulgated:

1. The Roman Missal is promulgated.
2. Law: No Mass may be read or sung except that which follows the new Missal.
3. Exception to Law: Those with a Rite or Usage which has been in existence since 1370 are not obligated to use the new Missal.
4. Law: All older rubrics and other customs are forbidden for those obligated to use the new Missal.
5. Privilege: Priests who use the new Missal are exempt from all penalties enforced by those who disobey the Pope in this matter.
6. Privilege: No priest may be forced to alter the Missal or say a different Mass.
7. Law: Penalties for those who disobey and dates for laws' effect.
   

I would be interested for whomever decides to take on this question to explain it in terms of Ecclesiastical Law and not anecdotally. Not a thesis, of course, but citing a few references to Canonical principles to show how the Law is set in stone.

I used to understand Quo Primum to be "infallible" because of the language, but more and more study forces me to understand it as a universal disciplinary law for the Latin Church, which may be changed when fitting, as it is human law (ST II:I q 97.)

[NorthernTrad]

Here's some food for thought.... The Novus Ordo is not a change to the Mass - it is an entirely new creation and completely separated from the Traditional Mass.  The NO cannot be compared to previous changes in the Missal.

[MagisterMusicae]

Here's some food for thought.... The Novus Ordo is not a change to the Mass - it is an entirely new creation and completely separated from the Traditional Mass.  The NO cannot be compared to previous changes in the Missal.

Debatable (and probably proper for another thread) ... though I'd lean toward new creation.

Quo Primum would need to be either ignored, abrogated or obrogated for any new form of Mass to be said.

Whether the Novus Ordo constitutes a new Mass or a change to the older form is immaterial to the questions posed.

[AdoramusTeChriste]

"After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”. - Cardinal Ratzinger

I found that earlier today in a Latin Mass article. LINK

Edit to add another link with the above quote.

[ggreg]

Perhaps the Novus Ordo is the most confusing mess a diabolical intelligence could come up with to wreck the faith of most Catholics.  Perhaps God did given Satan 100 years to try to destroy the Church and Vatican II and the Novus Ordo it spawned, is an attempt to do that.

Single outright heresies are easy to identify and are not going to be as effective as doubt and confusion sown in faith and morals, in liturgy and theology.  A healthy body can get an infection and create antibodies to deal with it.  The modern church appears on the other hand to have spiritual AIDS, where it's own immune system has been turned on it and it is destroying itself.

If this is the case then we have little chance of separating the cockle from the wheat or untying this Gordian knot, since an intelligence much greater than ours has muddled it with a totally free hand.