Regarding the obedience and liturigical reform, I want to repost this from Dietrich von Hildebrand from an essay entitled: “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference.”
"Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements. We also must adhere wholeheartedly to teachings of the Church in matters of morality, even if they are not defined ex cathedra. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, for example, is binding because its content has always been part of the teaching of the Church; in it we are confronted with the theoretical authority of the Church embodied in the tradition of the ordinary magisterium. It is not a mere practical commandment of the Church, like the commandment to go to church on Sunday. It is a statement about a moral fact; that is, it states a truth: that birth control is sinful. It is forbidden not because of the Pope’s policy, but because the theoretical authority of the Church declares its sinfulness. Here, as in all cases of a teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.
The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.
…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church.
…Nor can I conceal–and here we are returning to the point from which we started–the fact that the new Missale Romanum seems to me an incomparably greater mistake than that Concordat [with Hitler’s Germany]. I share the view of the great, venerable Cardinal Ottoviani–a true rock of orthodoxy–and of the group of Roman theologians who authored a critical study of the “new” Mass for Cardinal Ottoviani, that this liturgical innovation implies a contrast, at least by omission, with the de fide canons of the Council of Trent about the Mass.
latin-mass-society.org/study.htm].
On account of my deep love for and devotion to the Church, it is a special cross for me not to be able to welcome every practical decision of the Holy See, particularly in a time like ours, which is witnessing a crumbling of the spirit of obedience and of respect for the Holy Father.
But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the rubrics of the new Ordo (as distinct from the text itself) are at variance with the definition of the essence and raison d’etre of Holy Mass given by the Council of Trent. Consequently it must be feared that in their sermons, many priests will be encouraged to emphasize the character of the “assembly of the people of God” at the cost of both the mystery of the sacrifice of the Holy Mass and the ineffable gift for every individual soul granted in the sacrament of the Eucharist–faith in which is already menaced by certain heretical trends rampant in the Church.
Are theocentrism, the most intimate communion of the individual with Christ in the Eucharist, the reality of the glorious union with the saints, the militant, suffering and triumphant Church, recollection and reverence–are all these truths fostered in the new Ordo as securely as in the old? And are not these precisely the truths that need to be emphasized at the present moment?
We must not overlook the fact that behind many of the deplorable phenomena of our times–promiscuity, the rapid spread of criminality, student rebellion–there lurks a deep despair which echoes a cry for redemption, the ever-present longing of the anima naturaliter Christiana for Christ, the Epiphany of God, in His full supernatural glory. The unique character of our time calls not for yielding to the secular spirit–that can only increase the current despair–but for the full disclosure of the glory of the depositum Catholicae fidei.
Thus I hope and pray that the Tridentine Mass will not be abolished, but will continue to be celebrated side by side with the new Ordo. Furthermore, I hope and pray that in the course of time, its superiority, from the pastoral as well as the doctrinal standpoint, will be recognized by the Holy See, and that in the future the Tridentine Mass will be reinstated as the official liturgy of the holy Mass in the Western Church."
