Kurgan - More "heresies" disproven, and "Quo Primum" shown not to be absolute.

Kurgan is once again wrong. There are no heresies in the document “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

For some added knowledge, I recommend that you read my 8 part blog post entitled “The Mass - Meal and Sacrifice” in which I take you through the history and development of the Catholic Mass.

SUMMARY

Kurgan rambles on and on in his book for over 5 pages (169 - 175), basically saying over and over again that statements that say the bishops want to “change things” and “modernize” are heresies. As I pointed out in my blogpost entitled, “Another one of Kurgan’s Vatican 2 “heresies” proven FALSE”, heresy needs to be SHORT, CONCISE, and SPECIFIC. 

Simply stating that “changes need to be made” cannot be heretical.

Some examples:

Page 169 - Concerning the opening statement the document, Kurgan states, "In that sentence alone we see the beginning of the heresies that permeate the whole of Vatican II. (the beginning of possible heresy is not heresy)

Page 169 - Kurgan believes that the statement, "to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times" has the intent of heresy. (possible intent of heresy sometime in the future is not heresy).

Page 171-172 - Kurgan doesn't like the statements concerning the changeable elements of the Mass: "These not only may, but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it" and "express more clearly the holy things they signify". (Kurgan believes that there are no "changeable elements of the Latin Mass, so these statements are unacceptable. We will see how he is wrong shortly)

Page 173 - Kurgan doesn't like statement no. 30 of the document which reads as follows: "To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence" 

Kurgans response to statement no. 30 - "The Mass, is a reverent, respectful and dignified event and until it was eviscerated by the imposters and made the illicit parody that is the Novus Orco Mass, you certainly did not have any such foolishness such as singing and dancing by the congregation, or much less the priest" (Kurgan ignores the history of the Mass, how it started as a meal, and developed into the doctrine of the Real Presence slowly, over time. For good or for bad, one of the goals of this document was to restore some of the joyous celebration of the early gatherings that was lost with the Latin Mass. Please see my previous 8 part post on this very subject. Once again, no actual heretical statements are here.)

Pages 173-174 - Kurgan states this,"In part 36 we are told that while Latin should always be preserved (it was later tried to be done away with at every turn), there should be nothing preventing doing the Mass in the common tongue of the region. Why? Why would there be any reason to change it at all? The Latin Mass had been observed for centruies by all Catholics and any Catholic could have the same Mass anywhere in the world without needing the know the local language at all since it was a familiar ritual to him." (This is WRONG. The Eastern rite missionaries did indeed translate the liturgy into the languages of their new converts. This did not happen in the West. Wanting to translate the Mass into common tongues is not a new heretical thing, but merely following the Eastern rite tradition. Kurgan shows his lack of in-depth knowledge once again. NO HERESY.)

But the question is, "why does he think that just talking about changing the liturgy is heresy? The answer comes at the END of his rant concerning Sacrosanctum Concillium.  

[Concerning the revision of the Mass that was proposed in the Vatican II Document Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, point 50], 

On page 174 - Kurgan writes: 

 "There is only one teensy-weensy little problem with that though. It’s an immutable Papal Encyclical called Quo Primum issued by Pope Pius V in 1570, and in short it says that the Latin Tridentine Mass shall not in any way be changed, for time immemorial, and that any attempt to do so is an attack on the Church (Kurgan has a knack of “shortening things up in a deceptive paraphrase, as he does here. The part about attacking the church is made up). It really is that clear and definitive (No, it’s not. If you wold only bother to dig a little bit, you would see this). Don’t take my word for it (don’t worry, I’m not!), read it yourself, it’s included in its entirety in Appendix III at the end of this book."

Kurgan believes that the document “Quo Primum” is immutable and unchangeable, and that the Latin Mass cannot be changed in any way. So, his logic chain goes something like this:

1 - Quo Primum says the liturgy cannot be changed

2 - Sacrosanctum Concillium wants to change the liturgy. Therefore

3 - Sacrosanctum Concillium is heretical.

WRONG AGAIN KURGAN 

Let’s investigate…..

First of all, what is Quo Primum?

Answer - Quo Primum is a Papal bull decreed by Pope St. Pius V on July 14, 1570, which set in stone, for all time the exactness of the holy sacrifice of the Mass to be said in the mother tongue of the Church. Or did it?

OK, Let’s read it, shall we?  (Applicable parts below)

It states as follows (8 quotes):

1 - “ We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible”

2 - “Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Mass not be sung or read according  to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and women…”

3 - “This Missal is to be used by all churches…”

4 - “This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years…”

5 - “Further, as for those [printers] located in other parts of the world, the penalty is excommunication latae sententiae, and such other penalties as may in Our judgment be imposed:…”

6 - “Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple or conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgement, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.”

7 - “We likewise declare and ordain that no one whatsoever is forced of coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitution and decrees of the Holy See…”

8 - “Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice, of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, insult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles  Peter and Paul.”

So, it seems that no one can change this Missal for ever and ever, correct? On the surface, this appears to be true, but let's GO DEEPER:

First, two questions answered:

Question 1 - What is a Papal Bull, and what are they used for?

Answer - A papal bull (from “bola”, the leaden seal attached to the document) is a solemn instrument that popes use fro various questions such as doctrinal decisions, canonizations, disciplinary questions, jubilees, and the like. Only occasionally have they been used for the liturgy.

Question 2 - Can a Papal bull be definitive and irreformable?

Answer 2 - YES,  IF it deals with a doctrine or a dogma (faith and morals), with the proper infallible language. For a good example, let’s look at “Ineffabilis Deus”, through which Blessed Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate conception in 1854:

“Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

     Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

   Do you see how FORCEFUL this proclamation is? A doctrine has been declared, pronounce and defined, and must be believed firmly and constantly by the faithful. Quo Primum has none of this, as we will see. 

 Other bulls may contain a mixture of doctrinal and disciplinary  matters. An example would be Pius IV’s 1564 document “Dominici Gregis Custodiae” containing the rules for forbidding books, among which was the norm that reading a translation of the Old Testament was restricted to learned and pious men with permission from the bishop. This is obviously no longer in effect.

So, what about “Quo Primum”?

POINT 1 - IT IS A LEGAL, NOT DOCTRINAL DOCUMENT

Even though Quo Primum may contain some doctrinal elements, it is primarily a LEGAL document. As such, it is not intended to be definitive in the same way as a doctrinal definition would be, and would not bind St. Pius V himself or future popes if they decided to further fine tune the Missal, as is the case. It is worth noting that the decree nowhere mentions that it has any binding force on future papal action.

POINT 2 - THERE WERE EXCEPTIONS TO THE “ABSOLUTES”

The saintly Pope’s concern was to ensure as much unity as possible for the liturgy in a time when such unity was sorely needed. Even so, Quo Primum contains a clause exempting any Church which had its own ordo more than 200 years old. Many local Churches could have availed of this concession by most preferred to adopt the new missal for practical reasons.

     Some religious orders and some dioceses such as Lyon in France and Milan in Italy did opt out to legitimately maintain their own rite. Thus, expressions such as “it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing of to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us” cannot be interpreted in an absolutely literal sense.

POINT 3 - POPES HAVE CHANGED THE LITURGY SINCE

     Likewise, legal expressions such as “which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothin be added or Our newly published Missal, nothin omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein” cannot be literally interpreted as binding on possible later actions of Pope St. Pius V or upon his successors. The strictures fall only upon those who act without due authority.

     How can we be sure of this? Well, if it was absolutely binding, then Pope St. Pius V would have EXCOMMUNICATED HIMSELF a couple of years after publishing “Quo Primum” when he added the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary to the Missal following the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, not to mention Pope Clement XI who canonized Pius V in 1712, thus altering the missal. 

   Among the many other Popes who would have thus incurred “the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul” would have been St. Pius X for reforming the calendar, Pius XI who added the first new preface in centuries for the feast of Christ the King, Pius XII for completely revamping the rites of Holy Week as well as simplifying the rubrics, and Blessed John XXIII for adding St. Joseph’s name to the Roman Canon. Also, in 1604, Pope Clement VIII issued new regulations for the Blessing at Mass, and in 1634 Pope Urban VIII changed the wording of the Missals rubrics and hymn texts.

POINT 4 - POPE PIUS XII ENCYCLICAL “MEDIATOR DEI” SAYS THIS ABOUT CHANGING THE LITURGY:

From 1947:

“58. It follows from this that 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.

“59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded” (Mediator Dei).

We see from this document, that Quo Primum was not intended to be, and was not considered by an encyclical from 1947, to be absolute.

POINT 5 - FROM LOGIC

All Popes have EQUAL ABSOLUTE POWER when compared to each other. In that way, they are all equal. Pope Pius V (or any other Pope) does not have the power to legislate over future Popes; otherwise, he would be declaring those Popes to be inferior to him. An equal does not have power over another equal.

POINT 6 - POPE PIUS V CHANGED IT HIMSELF WITH THE BULL “QUOD A NOBIS”

St. Pius V also wrote the Bull Quod a nobis fixing the Breviary and the Divine Office, and at the end of it he issued penalties analogous to those in the Quo primum directed to anyone who would dare to change those norms. Notwithstanding, St. Pius X changed them without any problem. This means, once again, that St. Pius V did not include himself or any future Popes under his condemnations.

So, once again, if kurgan would only question his foregone conclusions, and not believe everything to be “simple”, “clear”,  and “obvious” and actually dig deeper instead of pretending he knows everything already, maybe he would see and admit some of his errors.

CONCLUSION 

It seems that the basis of Kurgan’s invented “heresies for the Vatican II document “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, is that the Papal bull Quo Primum is absolute and binding for eternity. It is not.

I have shown this to be FALSE, just like I have shown Canon 188.4 causing a loss of clerical state to be FALSE. I’d discuss this with kurgan, but he’s gone silent ever since I’ve asked him two direct yes/no questions:

1 - “Are the Bishops given the Holy Spirit when they are ordained?”

YES or NO?

2 - “Can a priest resign from the priesthood (the clerical state)?”

YES or NO?

If you want to know why Kurgan won’t answer these simple questions, please see my post entitled, “Kurgan’s dilemma”

CONCLUSION 

1 - Quo Primum - NOT ABSOLUTE

2 - VII document “Sacrosanctum Concilium” - NO HERESIES