The entire clergy, including every Pope, was forbidden, under the pain of anathema, to hold in disdain, omit, or change into new ones, the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments.( from Canon 13 of the Seventh Session)

As the crowning confirmation of the codification process, these words were added to the Creed of the Catholic Church: "I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all aforesaid sacraments" (p.303, Henry Denzinger, "The Sources of the Catholic Dogma". B. Herder Book Co. 1957).

Needless to say, every pope is bound by the Article of Faith.

As "Quod Nobis" is the explanation for the Breviary, "Quo Primum" is for the Mass of the Roman Rite.
 The papacy was put in control of all the liturgical books of the East and the West. From that time forward, no change was to be made to received and approved rites of the Sacraments. If we look up the meaning of the word, "control" in the dictionary, we will find that it is not about changing or replacing of the thing to be controlled. It is about governing its use.

The Missale Romanum is divided into two parts: the "Mass of the Catechumens" and the "Mass of the Faithful". The "Canon of the Mass" is the rule of the "Mass of the Faithful". It provides the rubrics (instructions) for the sacramental part of the Mass. This prayer, the "Canon of the Mass", contains the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
The "Canon of the Mass" is the rite of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

The Missale Romanum is the book that is used by a priest or a bishop for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the big leather-bound book, usually red, on the stand on the Altar. It is not the same book as your daily Missal. 

Whence are understood the words of the cited Canon of the Tridentine Council, sess. 7 can. 13 where it says thus: If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by any pastor whomever of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.These words are to be understood chiefly of the universal rites received in the universal Church, especially the Roman Church, of which rites the Council does not say, that they can be changed by no pastor, but not by whomever: for they cannot be changed by inferior Bishops: because universal rites such as these, as I have said, have their origin from a more universal and superior power: but inferiors are not able to derogate those things which have been instituted and commanded by a superior. Now the supreme Pontiff, from the plenitude of his power, would be able to change rites of this sort: because his power is not inferior, but is the same as that from which rites of this sort took their origin. Yet he never does or will do this without great necessity or utility, especially in these observances which are most ancient in the Church, and are believed to have been given by the Apostles, and perpetually observed. And one must judge, with the same proportion, of the private ceremonies of particular Episcopates. For these can also be changed by Bishops, if they should think it expedient, when they have not been confirmed by the proper authority of the supreme Pontiff, for the same reason. Yet one must beware of scandal in changes of this sort, and consideration of divine worship and the fruit of souls must always be kept in mind for the opportunity of times and places.

If you look up quicuмque in Lewis & Short, you will see that "whosoever" is not the only correct translation.

Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that your understanding of the meaning of quicuмque is correct, let's try it this way.

Statement: Whatsoever pastor of the Church can change the rites.
Negation: Not whatsoever pastor of the Church can change the rites.

The logic remains the same. Denying "whatsoever pastor" does not imply affirming "no pastor at all."


For Suarez's discussion of who can change sacramental ceremonies, please read Section III here in translation or here in Latin. Of particular relevance is his discussion of Canon 13:
In other words, he reads the canon in the exact way I told you above.


The Salmanticenses give the exact same reading here in disp. X, dub. I, §1 n. 4.

After the sixth session of the Council of Trent, Cardinal Cervini had a list of Protestant errors compiled for the Council to consider. One of these errors was Quemvis pastorem habere potestatem formas sacramentorum prologandi et abbreviandi pro arbitrio suo, et mutandi (see art. 12 here. This particular error was taken from Hermann von Wied's Liber reformationis. He was the heretical archbishop of Cologne. This book was largely drawn from the work of Martin Bucer. Thus it threw out all but two of the sacraments and held that their ceremonies, other than what was in Scripture, could be changed at will by any pastor.

You can read what Protestant Martin Chemnitz had to say about Canon 13 here. He understood this canon to deny authority to change rites to all pastors except the Pope. Calvin also understood the canon thus (here). Johann Heinrich Heidegger also read this canon as denying the right of Christians to change rites when necessary (here and here).

That is not how the word rite is used by the canon or its interpreters. The erroneous propostion Quemvis pastorem habere potestatem formas sacramentorum prologandi et abbreviandi pro arbitrio suo, et mutandi was docuмented by Johann Gropper, who docuмented many of the Protestant errors in the aforementioned Liber reformationis (See here).

However, he uses the word forma in a much broader sense than to just mean the sacramental form. Indeed, Gropper is talking about how the Protestants got rid of all the things you refer to as "sacramentals," but he uses instead forma. Thus when the Council was considering to word a condemnation of this, they realized that forma lent itself to being understood too narrowly as you understand it. Therefore, they changed the wording of the canon to its final form.

You can read all about the textual history of this canon here.

Dear jdfaber,

I keep reading as my time permits and one question constantly comes up: Are the canons of the Tridentine Council infallible statements? Are they dogmatic statements? Or, are they simply guide rules with penalties attached to them?  What does the Roman Catholic Church teach in this matter?

Thank you for your help.

It’s absolutely clear to those who don’t have some agenda that a pope can change the Canon of the Mass.