An Open Lesson for a Bishop

by Michael Davies

The Bull Quo Primum Tempore

The fact that there had been no previous conciliar or papal legislation on the subject of the Missal did not mean that the Missals in use prior to 1570 possessed no legal status. They were protected by the law of custom. Every existing Missal represented a custom and where a custom can be proved to have a century or more of immemorial use behind it. It can only be abrogated by express mention. The Bull Quo Primum Tempore:

The Roman Missal promulgated by Quo Primum does not exist in virtue of this Bull, i.e. by a personal decree of St. Pius V. Count Neri Capponi¹ explains that the Bull added the sanctions of positive law to the weight of customary law, and that the consensus of canonists is that in such a case should the positive law be abrogated the customary law remains operative. Positive law does not abrogate customary law but is added to it. No change of significance was made in the Roman Missal until the post-Vatican II revolution got underway. Apologists for this revolution attempt to give the impression that it is but the latest in a series of similar reforms. Thus, in an article originally published in La Croix on 26 August 1976, and subsequently reproduced all over the world, a French liturgist, Monsignor Aimé-Georges Martimort, cites a series of pre-conciliar reforms and revisions culminating in the addition of St. Joseph's name to the Roman Canon during the Council itself. He cites three popes in particular as having revised the Missal—Clement VIII, Urban VIII, and St. Pius X. This, he claimed, "goes to show that the reform of the Council of Trent has never been considered untouchable." Msgr. Martimort is best answered by reading the Brief Cum Sanctissimum of Pope Clement VIII, the Brief Si quid est of Pope Urban VIII, and the Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu of St. Pius X.² The principal aim of Popes Clement and Urban was to restore the Missal to its 1570 form. Pope Clement VIII, for example, explains that although St. Pius V had forbidden that anything could be added to or removed from his Missal, changes had been made over the years. He ordered that Missals incorporating such changes should not be used for the celebration of Mass unless they were amended to conform with the original text published under St. Pius V.

St. Pius X made a revision "not of the text but of the music. The Vatican Gradual of 1907 contains new, or rather restored, forms of the chants sung by the celebrant, therefore to be printed in the Missal."³ The Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu was concerned principally with the Breviary as it rearranged the Psalter. As a result of numerous canonizations the feasts of some saints were regularly replacing Sunday and ferial Masses, particularly the beautiful ferial Masses of Lent, and priests were no longer reciting the entire Psalter each week during the course of their Office. This involved some changes to the Calendar which explains why Divino Afflatu is included in the front of the Missal. This was to be the first stage in a much needed reform of the Roman Calendar to complete which the Pope established a commission of scholars. Like the reforms of Popes Clement VIII and Urban VIII, the reform of St. Pius X can be seen as an extension of the reform of St. Pius V.

On 24 March 1945, Pope Pius XII published his Apostolic Letter In cotidianis precibus authorizing a revised Latin translation of the Psalms. The new version was not mandatory and even though the new translations may have been more accurate many clerics preferred the traditional version. Pope Pius XII manifested his deep respect for tradition by introducing the revised Psalter simply as an option.

In a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, dated 9 February 1951, Pope Pius XII authorized the restoration of the Easter Vigil from the morning to the evening of Holy Saturday. Among the many sound reasons for this reform was the fact that Holy Saturday had ceased to be a holiday for many workers and the Vigil was frequently celebrated in a virtually empty church. In 1955 he authorized a rubrical revision of the Missal and Breviary chiefly concerned with the Calendar—thus continuing the task undertaken by St. Pius X.

On 18 November 1955 he approved the Decree Maxima redemptionis reforming the Holy Week ceremonies. There were sound reasons behind all the reforms and the continuity with the previous ceremonies was evident. As Pope Clement VIII remarked in Cum Sanctissimum, "These improvements, however, flowing as it were from the same sources and principles, seem rather to complete the meaning....than introduce anything new." Needless to say, the Ordinary⁴ of the Mass was not affected by these reforms which were welcomed and highly praised by some of the traditionalists who are implacably opposed to the reform of Pope Paul VI.⁵

On 23 March 1955 Pope Pius XII authorized a rubrical revision chiefly concerned with the Calendar. This was in line with the reform undertaken by St. Pius X. This reform was continued by Pope John XXIII with his Apostolic Letter Novum Rubricarum of 25 July 1960. As the title indicates ("The New Body of Rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal is Approved"), this reform was concerned principally with the rubrics, the Calendar in particular. However, he did make some changes to the Ordinary which were of no doctrinal significance but were unfortunate as they established a precedent. The first change is the least important and involved omitting the Psalm Judica Me and the Last Gospel on certain occasions. The second was to drop the Confiteor and Absolution before the people's Communion. It could be argued correctly that this is not an essential part of the rite as Mass can be celebrated with no one but the priest communicating. Nonetheless, it was the first change to the Ordinary of the Mass since 1570 and was to be followed by adding the name of St. Joseph to the Canon in December 1962. This breached a tradition that no change had been made in the Canon since the time of St. Gregory the Great. These changes left the Missal of St. Pius V substantially unchanged.

Principles of Liturgical Reform and Development

This article has shown that up to the Council of Trent the liturgy evolved as a body of customs which developed locally or by borrowing from the forms used in older and more prestigious churches. Within the Roman Rite each bishop was free to legislate for his own diocese although a wide degree of national uniformity naturally developed. After the Council of Trent the use of the Roman Missal became almost universal throughout the Roman Rite, but for the exceptions mentioned in Quo Primum and in certain dioceses, particularly in France, where some bishops continued to ignore the Bull and used their own Missals and Breviaries until well into the nineteenth century. Dom Gueranger devoted himself to extending the use of the Roman Missal and Breviary in France. Subsequent papal reforms up to 1960 consisted of restoring the Missal to the form promulgated by St. Pius V, adding new Propers, amending the rubrics—the Calendar in particular—improving the musical notation or translations of the Psalms, and a simplification and rationalization of the Holy Week ceremonies. These reforms indicate that no pope ever imagined that the Bull Quo Primum excluded any future reform of the Missal. What the Bull forbade was for anyone other than the Pope to make changes in the Missal on his own initiative. As Father Dulac explains, a basic principle in law is that "Par in parem potestam non habet," equals have no power over each other.⁶ The clauses forbidding changes to the Missal included in Quo Primum can be found in other papal legislation which was subsequently amended or revoked and there has never been the least suggestion that the popes concerned were exceeding their authority.

However, a distinction can be made between what the Pope has a legal right to do and what he has a moral right to do. One example, admittedly extreme, will suffice here. As Bishop of Rome and Ruler of the Vatican City, the Pope could order the demolition of St. Peter's Basilica and its replacement with a concrete monstrosity which he considered was a reflection of the spirit of our age and would have a greater appeal to contemporary man. Clearly, such an act would be an outrage. The Pope is not the owner of St. Peter's Basilica, he is its trustee. The fact that he would have the legal power to take this action does not give him the moral right to do so. I am confident that any pope who attempted such an act would not succeed as the outraged faithful would rise up and prevent him. Similarly, the Queen of England could not dispose of the Crown Jewels or sell Buckingham Palace to be demolished and replaced by a shopping precinct.

Father Dulac suggests that the following principle should govern the abrogation of previous papal legislation:

It is evident that all the revisions made by subsequent popes to the Missal of St. Pius V were changes he would have made himself under the same circumstances—they represent a continuation and not a contradiction of his work. These revisions left the Missal substantially unchanged. There could never have been the least doubt that the Missal of Pope John XXIII was still the Missal of St. Pius V. The revisions which followed Quo Primum can best be described as a continuation of the work of the Commission established by the Council of Trent.

Father Dulac considers that Quo Primum possesses three characteristics which make its abrogation inconceivable:

The fact that the Missal of St. Pius V is invested with the authority of the Council of Trent and was intended to give permanent liturgical expression to Catholic Eueharistic teaching, in opposition to the Protestant heresy, is certainly a convincing argument for its being preserved substantially unchanged in perpetuity.

One thing is quite certain, it is not simply unscholarly but dishonest to attempt to justify the replacement of the Missal of St. Pius V by the Missal of Pope Paul VI by claiming that Pope Paul VI was doing no more than continue a series of revisions which began with Pope Clement VIII and ended with Pope John XXIII. The Missal of Pope John XXIII was still prefaced by Quo Primum, stressing its continuity with that of St. Pius V. The one point in favor of Pope Paul's Missal is that its compilers were at least honest enough not to preface it with Quo Primum, Cum Sanctissimum, Si quid est, and Divino Afflatu. Apologists for the new Missal who claim that it is not more than a revised version of the former Roman Missal would be hard put to explain why, if this is the case, these documents have been omitted. What has taken place since Vatican II is not a general restoration ("instauratio") of the existing rite but the creation of a New Order of Mass, Novus Ordo Missae, something which the constitution on the Liturgy did not authorize. On the contrary, the Introduction to the Liturgy Constitution states that:

Father Joseph Gelineau, S. J., a Council peritus and professional apologist for the new liturgy, has admitted quite frankly in his latest book: "The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed."⁷

In an attempt to abate the storm of criticism which the Novus Ordo Missae had aroused Pope Paul VI made an impassioned plea for the faithful to accept it "with joyous enthusiasm and to implement it with prompt and unanimous observance." This welcome was demanded by the fact that the reform was "due to the express wishes of the recent Ecumenical Council." Every Catholic was obliged to render "prompt adherence" because "The reform about to be implemented corresponds to an authoritative mandate of the Church. It is an act of obedience, an attempt by the Church to maintain her true nature."⁸

Pope Paul VI did not explain how destroying the Roman Rite fulfilled the authoritative mandate of Vatican II to preserve and foster it in every way. Perhaps Bishop Lindsay would like to undertake this task. If he cared to explain his statement that Pope Paul VI reformed the Missal in exactly the same way that Pope St. Pius V did I am sure THE ANGELUS would be delighted to make the space available. I am equally sure that he would prefer not to provide such an explanation. Bishop Lindsay prefers to denigrate those who uphold the faith in journals where he knows that they will not be allowed to reply. This says a great deal about Bishop Lindsay and a great deal about the strength of his case.

On 8 December 1973, the ultra-Protestant Church of the Confession of Augsburg, in France, issued an historic statement authorizing its members to receive Holy Communion at "Catholic Eucharistic celebrations." The reasons given were unambiguous. Bishop Lindsay is indignant because: "Archbishop Lefebvre and others talk as though the revised rite were an un-Catholic prayer service." Unfortunately for the Bishop, this is also the view of the Church of the Confession of Augsburg and, with all the respect due to the said Hugh Lindsay in virtue of his office, it is reasonable to conclude that Protestants have a better idea of what is acceptable to them than even the Bishop of Hexam and Newcastle. Let them speak for themselves:

9. A longer extract from this statement is available in my pamphlet The Roman Rite Destroyed. This pamphlet contains other Protestant testimonies to the extent to which the New Mass is acceptable to them.