Is There a Perpetual Right to the Tridentine Rite?

The Tridentine Rite of Mass is the Latin Mass which was celebrated prior to the 1969 introduction of the new form of Mass (the Novus Ordo).

Some Catholics say that they have a right to continue using the older form of Mass.

Is that so?

1. Quo Primum and Perpetual Permission

One argument for a perpetual right is provided by Quo Primum. That is the document published by Pope Pius V, which promulgated the Tridentine missal. It says:

Let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal… We order… that nothing must be added to… omitted from… nor changed within it… We grant and concede in perpetuity [perpetuo] that… this Missal… may freely and lawfully be used. (Quo Primum, 1570)

Pius V sounds as if he is granting a perpetual right which prohibits changes and permits the use of the 1570 missal.

As a result, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (d. 1991) justified a rejection of the new version of Mass, stating:

I appeal to St. Pius V, who…said that, in perpetuity, no priest could incur a censure… for saying this Mass. (A Bishop Speaks, 1979, Sermon on 29 June 1976)

Yet Pius V, himself, changed his missal barely a year after its publication. Viewing the Battle of Lepanto (1571) as a miraculous intervention of Our Lady of the Rosary, he honored her by adding a feast to the missal.

Once that feast was added, no priest was allowed to claim a perpetual permission to use the original 1570 version of the missal. All priests had to follow the new version.

So, perhaps Pius V did not intend to fix a particular version of a missal in perpetuity? Perhaps he just intended to stop the contemporary liturgical changes and arguments which the Reformation was causing?

2. Perpetuity and Intentions

The importance of clarifying intentions can be seen with another perpetual command. The fourteenth-century Council of Vienne asserted a “perpetual edict” (edicto perpetuo) prohibiting “monks from living alone in houses” (Vienne, 1312, #14).

This edict was intended to prevent monks separating themselves from their monasteries and then treating themselves to scandalous luxurious lifestyles.

But there are other types of “living alone.” In England, for example, Benedictine monks such as Blessed George Gervase ministered to persecuted Catholics by hiding and living alone to secretly provide Mass. He labored selflessly and courageously, and was martyred by public execution in 1608.

It could be said that George Gervase broke the perpetual command of the Council of Vienne. But, arguably, the council did not intend its injunction to apply to his situation.

So, just because an instruction is perpetual, we still need to think about the intention behind the instruction, as there might be a good reason for exceptions.

3. Perpetuity and Exceptions

The thirteenth-century Fourth Lateran Council provides an example of a perpetual prohibition which has exceptions. Dealing with marriage impediments the council said:

Although the prohibition of marriage is now restricted to the fourth degree, we wish the prohibition to be perpetual [perpetuam]. (Lateran IV, 1215, #50)

Lateran IV’s perpetual prohibition continues to make it unlawful for Catholics to marry close relatives. But there can be exceptions.

In medieval politics royal marriages were often linked to international treaties for peace and prosperity. So the common good of nations could be directly affected by whether a marriage took place. The Church never intended its marriage prohibitions to harm the good of nations. So it generally allowed exceptions (dispensations) to its perpetual prohibition for royal marriages. This can be seen clearly in the Spanish Habsburg line which culminated in Charles II (d. 1700).

This shows that there can be exceptions to perpetual prohibitions.

But this example is taken from an Ecumenical Council. Perhaps papal appeals to “perpetual” are stronger and exceptionless?

4. Perpetual and Irreversible?

Some papal uses of the word “perpetual” do seem to imply an irreversibility.

Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of the inhabitants of the Canary Islands. He ordered that they be released immediately to a “perpetual freedom” (Sicut Dudum, 1435, #2). Presumably, a “perpetual freedom” is meant to be one that cannot be reversed, by re-enslaving the freed slaves.

Pope Paul VI distinguished between two types of sterilization, according to whether they were “temporary” or “perpetual,” (perpetuo) (Humanae Vitae, 1968, #14). A perpetual sterilization is clearly meant to be an irreversible sterilization.

These examples show that when a pope says that something is “perpetual” then it can imply that it is irreversible.

But does that irreversibility apply to future popes?

5. Perpetuity and the Franciscans

After the death of St. Francis of Assisi (1226), there were tensions amongst his followers. Some interpreted his views radically, and some took a moderate interpretation.

Towards the end of the thirteenth century Pope Nicholas III tried to arbitrate. He gave a judgement and insisted that all Franciscans must obey it, as it had a “perpetual (perpetue) validity” (Exiit Qui Seminat, 1279, #26).

But disagreements continued. By 1517 Pope Leo X decided to split the Franciscans into two separate branches: Observants and Conventuals.

If Pope Nicholas III’s solution was perpetually valid, how could Pope Leo X ignore it and come up with an entirely different solution?

Pope Leo’s actions only make sense if popes have the power to reverse the perpetual instructions of earlier popes.

Or, perhaps Pope Leo X was acting idiosyncratically in this incident?

6. Perpetuity Can Be Reversed

There are many examples of popes reversing “perpetual” instructions of predecessors.

Pope Julius III declared that the religious vows of the Jesuits were “perpetual” (Exposcit Debitum, 1550, #1). But Pope Clement XIV cancelled all perpetual Jesuit vows when he suppressed the order, leaving them with just the obligations which apply to any other priest (Dominus ac Redemptor, 1773).

Pope Paul VI described priestly celibacy as a “perpetual celibacy” (Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, 1967, #42). But priests can be dispensed from that vow if they are laicized.

Pope Pius IX explicitly notes the reversibility of perpetual sanctions when he referred to those who:

shall incur the penalty of perpetual [perpetuae] disability from preaching… and that it shall not be possible to absolve them from such a penalty, or remove it, save through ourselves, or the Roman Pontiffs who shall succeed us. (Ineffabilis Deus, 1854)

When popes say that something is perpetual, they are asserting a high degree of irreversibility. But future popes can reverse perpetual prohibitions of earlier popes.

Pope Leo XIII is particularly clear that Catholics cannot reject a current pope by appealing to a previous pope’s instructions or injunctions. He says:

It is… far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who… reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them;… they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed. (Epistola Tua, 1885)

7. Vatican I and Papal Supremacy

The First Vatican Council (1870) explains why popes can change perpetual permissions and prohibitions of predecessors.

Vatican I declared that popes have a “supremacy of jurisdiction” across the whole Church. They have “supreme authority” over everything which relates to faith, morals, governance and discipline. This means that they can make whatever judgments are necessary, to resolve disagreements and ensure Church unity (Pastor Aeternus, 1870, chapter 3).

If a past pope could issue binding perpetual permissions or prohibitions, then current popes would not possess the “supremacy of jurisdiction” which Vatican I says that they do possess.

As Pope Pius IX put it:

[The pope] has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment. (Quartus Supra, 1873, #10)

However, there is one exception to the supremacy of papal powers and that relates to doctrine.

8. Perpetuity and Doctrine

When a pope makes a doctrinal pronouncement, it cannot be changed by a successor.

In 1950, Pope Pius XII said that the doctrine of the Assumption was a Truth. No future pope can ever change that doctrine. This is because changing a truth would make it false, and a belief cannot be both true and false (i.e., contradictory).

Sometimes popes have referred to doctrinal issues as “perpetual.” Pius XI declared that:

[Marriage]… was divinely instituted in such a way that it should carry with it a perpetual [perpetuum] and indissoluble bond. (Casti Connubii, 1930, #34)

The Church cannot change perpetual marriage vows, as the indissolubility of marriage is a doctrine (revealed in the Bible). But the Church can change perpetual religious vows (see section 6) as it has no doctrine saying that they are indissoluble.

Pope Leo XIII described doctrine about Scripture and Tradition as a “perpetually held and professed” belief (Providentissimus Deus, 1893, #1). As it is a doctrine, we know that this perpetuity must be irreversible, but that is not entirely clear from Leo’s language.

To be more precise, Leo XIII sometimes stated that a doctrine is “perpetual and immutable” (Satis Cognitum, 1896, #8), explicitly linking the words to show the irreversibility of a doctrinal perpetuity.

9. Does Quo Primum Establish a Perpetual Right?

Historical examples show that popes can reverse the perpetual permissions and prohibitions of previous popes, as long as they relate to “disciplinary” matters, rather than doctrinal issues.

Could Quo Primum be asserting an irreversible doctrinal perpetuity?

That is implausible because Quo Primum gives permissions and prohibitions which relate to behavior, such as saying Mass, or changing a missal. Behavioral matters are issues of discipline, not doctrine.

This interpretation of Quo Primum was held by the twentieth-century popes who changed the Tridentine liturgy (which Quo Primum promulgated).

In 1956 Pope Pius XII changed the Easter week liturgy. In 1962 Pope John XXIII changed a word in the canon of the Mass. In 1969 Pope Paul VI implemented the new form of Mass. Since then, Popes John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have all accepted the legitimacy of setting aside Quo Primum’s permissions and prohibitions.

During Vatican II, 2147 bishops voted in favor of Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963) with just 4 bishops voting against it. That document authorizes changes to the Mass. So it also represents a judgment by the overwhelming majority of Catholic bishops that Quo Primum is dealing with disciplinary matters which the Church has the authority to set aside.

Even in the nineteenth century, Pope Leo XIII asserted his right to amend the missal “notwithstanding the constitutions of Pope St. Pius V, and other apostolic documents on the reform of the breviary and the Roman Missal” (Grande Munus, 1880, #20).

Pius XII was even more explicit about papal powers over the liturgy:

The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Mediator Dei, 1947, #58)

These papal comments and actions mean that it is hard to see how Quo Primum could establish perpetual permissions or prohibitions, which could bind future popes.

10. Conclusion: Is There a Right to the Tridentine Rite?

Although Quo Primum cannot establish a right to the Tridentine rite, perhaps the Second Vatican Council could do so?

Vatican II stated:

The sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1963, #4)

Pope Benedict XVI recognized that the Tridentine rite had never been abolished, so it would seem to count as a “lawfully acknowledged rite” (Summorum Pontificum, 2007).

This means that there is an arguable case that it falls under Vatican II’s injunction that it should be “preserved” and “fostered.” Of course, only those who recognize the authority of Vatican II would be in a position to argue such a case.