Taylor Marshall and Quo Primum: Did Pope Pius V Grant a Perpetual Right to the Traditional Mass?

Refuting a popular but false narrative…

Taylor Marshall and Quo Primum: Did Pope St. Pius V Really Grant a Perpetual Right to the Traditional Mass?

There are a number of urban legends floating around the traditionalist Catholic world that simply will not die.

One of the more popular ones is the claim that in his 1570 bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V granted to all Catholic priests of the Roman rite the perpetual right to offer Holy Mass according to the rite he was then promulgating, which is today known as the Traditional Latin Mass; and that no subsequent Pope has the authority to withdraw that permission or revoke that right.

This is what is commonly believed among those who identify as traditional Catholics, especially those of the recognize-and-resist stripe; but some Sedevacantists, too, have fallen prey to this myth, which has been around since the 1960s.

As regards the origin of this false belief, most likely it does not stem from anyone’s willful desire to deceive but from a simple mistake, made through ignorance due to an incomplete awareness of the relevant facts. Someone probably read the papal document without being familiar with the technical jargon used and so drew a wrong conclusion. However, as that conclusion was rather useful in the fight against the liturgical horror show ‘Pope’ Paul VI had promulgated as the ‘new order of Mass’ (novus Ordo Missae), it was not really questioned and spread like wildfire. Ultimately it established itself as a permanent error that continues to be believed and repeated to this very day.

The intent here is not to blame people for having once believed or spread this urban legend, but rather to set the record straight now and to criticize those who, out of negligence or convenience are still keeping this urban legend alive instead of doing their due diligence and researching the facts, which can be done so quickly and easily now.

Among such people deserving of blame we must number Dr. Taylor Marshall, influential ‘traditional Catholic’ American YouTuber, philosopher, former Anglican priest, and author of the under-researched and over-hyped book Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within (2019).

But more on Marshall later. First, let’s have a careful look at what exactly the controversy is about.

Pope Pius V and the Universal Roman Missal

On July 14, 1570, Pope Saint Pius V (r. 1566-1572) released the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum, by which he promulgated what has since become known as the traditional Roman Missal, also called the Tridentine Mass or Traditional Latin Mass. His Holiness decreed:

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 of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or 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 constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.

(Pope St. Pius V, Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum; underlining added.)

At first sight, it seems that those who claim Quo Primum establishes the Roman Missal thus promulgated irrevocably for all time are correct. After all, Pope Pius V said he was granting the right to use this missal “in perpetuity” and said that his bull “cannot be revoked or modified”. Thus, it would seem to follow that no authority on earth can ever take it away, and that would include even subsequent Popes. Hence, any ecclesiastical legislation that would contradict this, such as Paul VI’s Missale Romanum (1969) or Francis’ Traditionis Custodes (2021), is automatically null and void.

That is the popular ‘trad’ argument. But is it true? Is this how the Church — her Popes, her bishops, her theologians and canonists — have understood Quo Primum?

The best way to answer this question would be to check pre-Vatican II theological sources (such as books and theological journals) where the Sacred Liturgy and/or church law are discussed. If the supporters of this thesis are understanding the relevant magisterial documents to which they occasionally appeal correctly — especially Quo Primum but also the Council of Trent, for example — then surely some Pope, bishop, theologian, or canon lawyer would confirm this somewhere.

Until recently, verifying this would have been rather difficult and time-consuming to research, but in our day, it is quite easy to do, without much inconvenience.

Before we dig into some findings of our own, however, let’s first look at some of the latest online iterations of the Quo Primum-in-perpetuity narrative.

The False Narrative is Repeated Again and Again

In a post published at the popular One Peter Five, a contributor by the name of Joseph Fredriksson reveals his sincerely-held but flawed understanding of the topic as follows:

When Pope St. Pius V issued the apostolic constitution Quo Primum in 1570, it seems to a layman like me that he intended the relevant Roman Missal to be treated in a similar way to the codification of the books of Scripture; while new translations of the Bible may continue to be produced until the end of time for a variety of pastoral reasons, the books it contains are not the kind of thing one can substantially change as the Council of Trent makes clear. Similarly, minor alterations of that Missal (such as the ones which came from Pius V’s own hand after Quo Primum) are permitted for the sake of manifesting more clearly God’s Providential actions in each age. Wholesale revisions of that Missal’s structure, on the other hand, are forbidden. Of course, other missals like those which belong to the East, those belonging to certain Western religious orders or dioceses, or the new Roman Missal can exist as additional “valid” missals (just as the East has long believed a few additional Scriptural texts are also inspired by the Holy Ghost), but Pius V doesn’t see his missal as something that can ever be abrogated.

(Joseph Fredriksson, “Prepare Your Soul for the TLM Suppression”, One Peter Five, July 12, 2024; underlining added.)

Such may be the musings of a “layman like me”, but they are unfortunately not helpful in this discussion. That is because the opinion that St. Pius V “intended the relevant Roman Missal to be treated in a similar way to the codification of the books of Scripture” is being offered gratuitously, meaning it is presented without (sufficient) evidence.

What books are divinely inspired is a matter of Faith, not a matter of ecclesiastical discipline. There is an essential difference between defining what books are inspired by God and therefore make up the canon of Holy Scripture, and decreeing what ritual rules, actions, and prayers constitute the Roman rite of Mass to be used henceforth throughout the Latin Church.

Furthermore, it is clear that Fredrisksson cannot deny that some modifications were made to the Roman Missal subsequent to Pius V’s legislation, and so he conveniently stipulates that “minor alterations” are permitted by Quo Primum. However, there is nothing in the bull’s language that would indicate such a thing.

So Fredriksson has given his opinion on the missal of St. Pius V, but as that opinion is not based on a proper understanding of the subject matter because devoid of sufficient research, the opinion is worthless and actually misleading.

Another recent post that sustains the Quo Primum myth comes from ‘Bp.’ Joseph Strickland, the retired ordinary of the diocese of Tyler. Regarding the traditional Roman Missal he writes:

Various popes have tried to protect this ancient form of the Mass. On July 19, 1570, Pope St. Pius V issued this decree: “By this our decree, to be valid IN PERPETUITY, we determine and order that NEVER shall anything be added to, omitted from, or changed in this Missal … 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.” However, after 1970, the pre-conciliar 1962 Missal was discouraged and in fact banned in many places. There was some confusion at the time about whether this would completely suppress the “Tridentine” Missal. However, in his motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” Pope Benedict XVI stated: “this Missal {1962} was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.“ However, now with Pope Francis’s motu proprio, “Traditionis custodes,” he has embarked on a journey to suppress what other popes have sought to guard, and what Pope St. Pius V said shall be valid in perpetuity. This is deeply concerning.

(“Upon This Rock I Will Build My Church”, Bishop Strickland’s Substack, July 1, 2024; underlining added.)

As Strickland himself has stated, he is a newcomer to the Traditional Mass, having discovered it only recently. Thus one can cut him some slack, but the objective fact remains that what he is arguing is incorrect, as we will see shortly.

Lastly, another influential pundit who has recently spread the Quo Primum urban legend (and not for the first time) is the aforementioned Taylor Marshall.

On June 18, 2024, Marshall released episode no. 1098 of his YouTube program, entitled, “Will Pope Francis Ban Latin Mass This Year?” His essential argument about Quo Primum begins at the 32:42 mark and ends at 49:21 in the embedded video below. It is quite comical to watch Marshall give such a confident presentation when what he says is so ill-informed and theologically flawed:

The video can also be accessed directly on YouTube here.

What Marshall does here is incredibly foolish and dangerous. He instructs his viewers on a subject matter he has obviously not really studied. He simply repeats the common traditionalist narrative and uses shallow arguments that may make sense to him but are nevertheless ultimately false. The worst part is that he blasts this shoddy content all over the internet and his audience is eating it up — to his enjoyment perhaps but certainly to their detriment.

Marshall emphasizes that Pope Pius V used his “apostolic authority”, that he said “in perpetuity”, and that “perpetual” means unending. He also points out that Pius’ apostolic authority is that “of a Pope who is a saint”, as if his sainthood — obviously not yet definitively established or declared at the time — had anything to do with the binding force of the decree. An act of the Supreme Pontiff doesn’t become more authoritative because it comes from a Pope who is very holy, just as such an act does not become less authoritative because the Pope who promulgates it is a moral reprobate. That is just nonsense.

Having looked at these three recent instances of the Quo Primum myth being disseminated once more, we wonder why all three of these men decided to speak on the matter without gathering the relevant data first. If their interpretation of St. Pius V’s Apostolic Constitution is correct, where are all the pre-Vatican II theological authorities confirming it? Did they not also understand it the same way the ‘semi-trads’ (our moniker for recognize-and-resist trads) do today?

The Real Meaning of Papal Legislation ‘in Perpetuity’

Even just a little bit of digging confirms: The Church before Vatican II did not understand the binding nature of Quo Primum the way so many self-proclaimed ‘traditional Catholics’ in our day do. In other words, the narrative being spread today is in fact a novelty.

For example, the American theologian Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (1906-1969), a staunch anti-Modernist, wrote just before the beginning of Vatican II that the council “can change much of the ritual of the Mass” (“The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council”, American Ecclesiastical Review 147 [Oct. 1962], p. 263). Fenton apparently knew nothing of only “minor alterations” (Fredriksson) the Pope is supposedly allowed to make, and St. Pius V’s “perpetuity” clause didn’t seem to impress him either, despite the saint’s “apostolic authority” (Marshall).

So what is going on here? Does “in perpetuity” not mean always, forever, henceforth, without end?

While that is indeed the meaning in common parlance, it would be a mistake to think that every time the phrase appears in an ecclesiastical document, even one written in Latin in the 16th century, it must have precisely the meaning that coincides with the common linguistic usage of our day. Considering that Quo Primum concerns itself with such a sublime matter as regulating the Catholic Church’s worship of the Most Holy Trinity, we should not be surprised if the Church attributes a more technical meaning to that expression in the context of establishing ecclesiastical law.

Indeed, it turns out that in such papal legislation, the phrase “in perpetuity” simply means that the law being imposed has no automatic “expiration date”, so to speak — it does not mean that it can never be changed or rescinded by the competent authority, that is, by another (or even the same) Pope. In the case of Quo Primum, the “in perpetuity” clause quite simply means that the Apostolic Constitution remains in effect indefinitely, that is, until a future Pope changes it. In other words, it is not simply a temporary edict but a real, permanent law for the entire Church.

How do we know this? We know it from a number of considerations.

For one thing, there is no reason to suppose that what one Pope has the authority to do, another, who naturally enjoys the exact same level of authority, cannot change or repeal. We are, of course, speaking of disciplinary matters, not matters of dogma. It is true that a dogmatic definition cannot be changed or abolished by any Pope after it has been made; but dogma refers to what must be believed — for example, which books are divinely inspired –, whereas discipline refers to what is to be done. And it is clear that the Sacred Liturgy falls under the category of discipline and is therefore changeable (see Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, nn. 53, 124).

In fact, in issuing Quo Primum, St. Pius V was himself changing the Sacred Liturgy. He was standardizing the Roman Missal so that everywhere throughout the Church the Mass would be offered in exactly the same manner. Other ways of offering Mass were being forbidden, although he did graciously make an exception for missals that had already been in use for at least 200 years. Why, then, should only Pope Pius V have the right or authority to change the Sacred Liturgy and not his successors?

In fact, in 1947 Pope Pius XII clearly taught 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” (Encyclical Mediator Dei, n. 58).

This is entirely in line with St. Pius V’s Apostolic Constitution, in which he decreed that “even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church” must obey it, while saying nothing about future Popes, whom he knew he could not bind and was not trying to bind. Similarly, Pius V declared that “this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain[s] always valid and retain[s] its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See”, while being entirely silent about subsequent constitutions and decrees of the Holy See. Why would St. Pius V not explicitly mention future Popes if he was trying to specifically bind them as well?

Church History Confirms It

That the “in perpetuity” clause does not pretend to bind subsequent Roman Pontiffs can also be seen from the Church’s own practice. Let’s look at two concrete cases.

The first historical example is that of the suppression of the Society of Jesus (Jesuit order). When Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuits in 1773, he issued a decree in which he declared that this suppression was to be “perpetually valid” (perpetuoque validas) and ordered that it be “inviolably observed by each and every man whom it concerns and by anyone whomsoever it will concern in the future” (Bull Dominus Ac Redemptor, p. xxix).

This rather clear and forceful language did not stop Clement’s successor, Pope Pius VII, from rescinding the suppression and reinstating the Jesuit order on August 7, 1814, declaring that whosoever would dare to contravene his decree would “incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul” (see Pope Pius VII, Decree Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum, p. 14). In the case of the Jesuits, then, “perpetuity” lasted only about 41 years.

Another, more recent case concerns the Roman Breviary (Divine Office). Just as Pope St. Pius V released Quo Primum to regulate the order of Mass for the entire Latin Church, so two years prior the same Pope had also released an Apostolic Constitution standardizing the Roman Breviary. The name of that bull is Quod a Nobis, and it was issued on July 7, 1568. The full Latin text of it can be found beginning on p. iii of this PDF file of a 1942 Breviary.

Interestingly enough, the bull uses very similar language as that included in Quo Primum — language which establishes the promulgated text of the Breviary “in perpetuity” (in perpetuum) and strictly forbids anyone from modifying it.

A computer-based automatic English translation renders the final passage as follows:

Therefore, let no man at all be permitted to violate this page of Our ablation, abolition, permission, revocation, command, precept, statute, annulment, mandate, decree, relaxation, encouragement, prohibition, imposition, and will, or to contravene it with a reckless venture. But if any one presumes to attempt this, he knows that he incurs the indignation of Almighty God, and of his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

(Pope St. Pius V, Apostolic Constitution Quod a Nobis; translation through Google Translate with human help.)

Nonetheless, no Pope after Pius V considered himself bound by Quod a Nobis, and indeed his immediate successor, Pope Gregory XIII, was the first to make changes to the Breviary. We can only conclude that it was understood that Pius V didn’t mean to, and in any case couldn’t, bind his own successors on such disciplinary matters — any language about “perpetuity” or “apostolic authority” notwithstanding.

The most famous successor of Pope Pius V who made changes to the Breviary was Pope Pius X, himself a canonized saint (not that this adds any greater authority to his pontifical acts, as we already said; but it does show that the way he ruled the Church found approval with God).

Saint Pius X’s reform of the Roman Breviary was considerable, and at the time it was promulgated (1911), not everyone was delighted with it. Yet, it seems that no bishop or cleric claimed that Pius X had violated Quod a Nobis and that his revision of the Divine Office was for that reason null and void. (It would take a foolhardy semi-trad layman, Peter Kwasniewski, over 100 years later, to accuse St. Pius X of “liturgical Modernism”.)

Pope Pius X ordered the revision of the Roman Breviary with his decree Divino Afflatu of Nov. 1, 1911. Its original Latin text is available here, and an English translation can be found in American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol. 37, n. 145 (Jan. 1912), pp. 166-170.

Before introducing the changes he was promulgating for the Divine Office, St. Pius X paid fitting tribute to his predecessors:

With good reason was provision made long ago, by decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, by canons of the Councils, and by monastic laws, that members of both branches of the clergy should chant or recite the entire Psaltery every week. And this same law, handed down from antiquity, our predecessors St. Pius V., Clement VIII. and Urban VIII. religiously observed in revising the Roman Breviary. Even at present the Psaltery should be recited in its entirety within the week, were it not that owing to the changed condition of things such recitation is frequently hindered.

(Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu; in American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol. 37, n. 145 [Jan. 1912], p. 167.)

After explaining the reasons for the changes he was introducing, the Supreme Pontiff instituted the revised Breviary in the following words:

Therefore, by the authority of these letters, we first of all abolish the order of the Psaltery as it is at present in the Roman Breviary, and we absolutely forbid the use of it after the 1st of January of the year 1913. From that day in all the churches of the secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious, by all and several who by office or custom recite the canonical hours according to the Roman Breviary issued by St. Pius V. and revised by Clement VIII., Urban VIII. and Leo XIII., we order the religious observance of the new arrangement of the Psaltery in the form in which we have approved it and decreed its publication by the Vatican Printing Press. At the same time we proclaim the penalties prescribed in law against all who fail in their office of reciting the canonical hours every day; all such are to know that they shall not be satisfying this grave duty unless they use this our disposition of the Psaltery.

We command, therefore, all the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots and other prelates of churches, not excepting even the Cardinal Archpriests of the patriarchal basilicas of the city, to take care to introduce at the appointed time into their respective dioceses, churches or monasteries, the Psaltery with the rules and rubrics as arranged by us, and the Psaltery and these rules and rubrics we order to be also inviolately used and observed by all others who are under the obligation of reciting or chanting the canonical hours. In the meanwhile it shall be lawful for everybody and for the chapters themselves, provided the majority of a chapter be in favor, to use duly the new order of the Psaltery immediately after its publication.

This we publish, declare, sanction, decreeing that these our letters always are and shall be valid and effective, notwithstanding Apostolic Constitutions and ordinances, general and special, and everything else whatsoever to the contrary. Wherefore let nobody infringe or temerariously oppose this page of our abolition, revocation, permission, ordinance, precept, statute, indult, mandate and will. But if anybody shall presume to attempt this let him know that he will incur the indignation of Almighty God and of His Apostles the Blessed Peter and Paul.

(St. Pius X, Divino Afflatu; in American Catholic Quarterly Review, p. 169; underlining added.)

Now that is some strong language! Does it sound familiar?

Pope St. Pius X did precisely what the semi-trads claim a Pope cannot do: He substantially changed the Roman Breviary, despite the “in perpetuity” cause of St. Pius V’s Quod a Nobis; he absolutely forbade the use of the prior Breviary as of Jan. 1, 1913, regardless of prior legislation, custom, or tradition; and he decreed that his revised arrangement “always [is] and shall be valid and effective”. Although he did not use the term in perpetuum, he used an equivalent phrase, semper esse ac fore.

In short, Taylor Marshall and his theological friends are refuted on all points by none other than Pope St. Pius X himself!

Thus we ask: Did all these Popes, and the Church herself, not understand St. Pius V? Did they all recklessly violate what this holy Pope had laid down? Were they all crypto-Modernists?

Of course not. The answer is much simpler: It’s the semi-traditionalists of our day who are wrong because they have been led to accept a comforting but thoroughly false narrative.

A Conventional Legal Formula

In his own post on the Quo Primum myth, the late sedevacantist Fr. Anthony Cekada once said, “The forever clause was merely a type of legal boilerplate common in all sorts of papal legislation.” It turns out that he was entirely right.

The same goes for the paragraph that states no one is permitted to contradict or change the decree. As the Novus Ordo apologists James Likoudis and Ken Whitehead have pointed out, St. Pius V was by no means using a unique formula for his particular legislation. Rather, the language “was actually a conventional legal formula automatically attached to many documents issued by the popes”. And they add:

This paragraph was so much of a conventional legal formula in the papal documents of the day that we, the authors, checking the Latin text of Quo Primum in the course of our research, found that this paragraph was not even reproduced in full at the end of Quo Primum in the collection of papal bulls we consulted! The Latin of this paragraph begins “Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam,” etc., but in the collection of papal bulls there is printed simply “Nulli ergo, etc.” — so much was this paragraph considered a mere conventional formula!

(James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass [Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2006], p. 58; italics given.)

No, we are not suddenly switching to using post-Vatican II sources as evidence. We are simply quoting people who have succinctly stated what is indeed true about the pre-Vatican II evidence. For example, this randomly-picked collection of papal bulls from 1431 to 1521 contains hundreds of examples of the abbreviated “Nulli ergo, etc.” ending of papal documents.

In other words, it was truly just a standard — boilerplate — ending that gave solemnity and weight to a bull, establishing the things decreed authoritatively and abolishing anything else that might go contrary to them. It was, then, by no means a unique formula used exclusively by Pope St. Pius V for his Roman Missal with the intent that it could never be changed by a future Pope.

Bad News for Taylor Marshall & Co.

All this shows that Taylor Marshall has no idea what he’s talking about, and he didn’t bother to do the work needed to come to a correct understanding of the subject. Indeed, his ‘research’ didn’t go beyond locating an English translation of Quo Primum.

In February of 2023, we had already criticized Taylor Marshall for broadcasting a big show about whether a Pope can forbid the Latin Mass, because instead of consulting the relevant pre-Vatican II sources or asking competent liturgists or canon lawyers about the matter, he instead invited Catholic Family News editor Matt Gaspers on his show. Gaspers presented his own research that — surprise! — yielded the conclusion that a Pope could not forbid the traditional missal. (As an aside, we suspect that, had Gaspers concluded anything else, Marshall would not have been interested in having him on his show.)

• Can Francis Ban the Latin Mass? Sedevacantist Critique of a recent Taylor Marshall Podcast (Part 1)
• Can Francis Ban the Latin Mass? Sedevacantist Critique of a recent Taylor Marshall Podcast (Part 2)

We can only pray that the myth surrounding Quo Primum will not continue to be repeated… in perpetuity.

Image source: Shutterstock (Thoom) and YouTube (screenshot) and fratresinunum.com
Licenses: paid and fair use