Was Tridentine Mass "Forbidden"

[Timothysis]

Timothy…

Two things real quick. First, can you please show me the document where Pope Paul VI references the TLM or that you say replaces the Traditional Rite with the Novus Ordo.

Pope Paul VI reformed the Roman Missal. The result is the current Missal of Pope Paul VI. I don’t think you are going to find a reference where Pope Paul said “I’m replacing this missal,” anymore than you will find one where Pope John XXIII said “I’m replacing this missal” when he issued the revised missal of 1962. Your use of “Traditional Rite” and “Novus Ordo” shows a certain prejudice on your part. “Novus Ordo” means “new order,” referring to the “new order” of the Mass. Hence, every revision of a missal is technically a “novus ordo,” be it Pope John XIII’s revision of the Roman Missal or Pope Paul VI’s revision of the Roman Missal.

Second, you must realize that as you said the Pope is absolutely above canon law, which is by nature temporary. If the pope, however, makes a law and says that it must be in place forever, then can you please tell me when forever ends.

The laws of the Church are embodied in Canon law. What may be a law in the current code may not be a law in a future code.

That law would therefore be not simply a temporary canon law but would be rather a fixed law that the pope said that no one in the future could abrogate.

See above.

The fact that a future pope (Benedict XVI) refers to the TLM as the EF and the NO as the OF does not mean that the TLM has been abrogated or replaced, which according to Quo Primum can never happen.

To this I will simply say that you have a misunderstanding of what exactly Quo Primum says.

Again, I don’t see at all how you refuted my argument that a priest or bishop who refuses to permit the TLM is not bound by a law established as an eternal law by a previous pope. You have not provided the actual text from Paul VI that clearly declares that the TLM was abrogated or officially forbidden by him and even if Paul VI said something like that the question still remains as to whether a pope who is of the same authority as a previous pope can say that a law that a prior pope said would continue forever could be abrogated.

Again, the Church is ruled by the laws of the Church. Bishops and priests are, according to Canon law, bound to celebrate Mass by the current Missal, the Missal of Pope Paul VI, not the Missal of Pope John XXIII. With this siege mentality of yours, bishops and priests can refute obedience to the current pontiff by claiming obedience to a pontiff from 400 years ago. It doesn’t work that way. Really, I don’t know how to say it any differently.

 

[Timothysis]

Wrong. A current pope can absolutely bind a future pope. Any infallible declaration for example does exactly that. No future pope can contradict sacred Tradition or establish anything contrary. The question is whether a pope can bind a future pope concerning temporal matters. The answer would seem to be that no he could not unless he established a temporal law that he said must endure forever until the end of time and that no one could change it.

You are correct that if a pope declares something to be part of the deposit of faith, then no future pope can change that. The job of the pope is to protect the deposit of faith. But when it comes to changes in discipline, and the liturgy falls under discipline, then one pope can make changes to what another pope has done. Simply, a pope cannot today declare what all future pontiffs must do in terms of discipline. They can’t. Sorry. I don’t know what else to say.

By the way, the last two infallible declarations, where the pope speaks from the Chair of Peter, were the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950(?) and the Immcaulate Conception of Mary one hundred years prior. It isn’t as if the pope is making an infallible declaration once a month.

 

[TheDoctor]

Wrong. A current pope can absolutely bind a future pope. Any infallible declaration for example does exactly that. No future pope can contradict sacred Tradition or establish anything contrary. The question is whether a pope can bind a future pope concerning temporal matters. The answer would seem to be that no he could not unless he established a temporal law that he said must endure forever until the end of time and that no one could change it.

Come now my brother. There have been enough of these threads that we all know that what is being spoken of here is “A current Pope cannot bind a future Pope in matters of discipline”. No one will argue nor have they ever argued about scripture, Tradition or doctrine.

If we simply look at the history of canon law, all of which were promulgated under the authority of the Pope, we can see clear examples of Popes establishing “temporal laws” that were changed many times - the fact that one Pope says “must endure forever” does not bind a future Pope.

By your logic, all John Paul II had to say was “The 1983 code of Canon Law is hereby pronounced and must endure forever under the pain of the Wrath of God” and then “poof”, no more additions, deletions or changes to canon law forever. Does that really sound logical? Would you defend that as vigorously?

 

[una_fides]

Pope Paul VI reformed the Roman Missal. The result is the current Missal of Pope Paul VI. I don’t think you are going to find a reference where Pope Paul said “I’m replacing this missal,” anymore than you will find one where Pope John XXIII said “I’m replacing this missal” when he issued the revised missal of 1962.

Ok, so you are claiming that by merely promulgating a missal that it therefore ipso facto forbids use of the former??? There is a difference because Quo Primum said that all other forms were suppressed. When did Paul VI suppress the TLM?

Your use of “Traditional Rite” and “Novus Ordo” shows a certain prejudice on your part. “Novus Ordo” means “new order,” referring to the “new order” of the Mass. Hence, every revision of a missal is technically a “novus ordo,” be it Pope John XIII’s revision of the Roman Missal or Pope Paul VI’s revision of the Roman Missal.

I don’t see any bias in referring to the New Ordo of Mass as the Novus Ordo. This name is what the new mass is known by everywhere. It’s not just some “Traditionalist conspiracy” as you would make it out to be. The NO mass was created by a group of people in a committee under the influence of six Protestants. The result was a mass that was virtually void of prayers to the saints and clear references to the sacrifice of the Mass as being the same sacrifice of calvary in an unbloody manner rather than a mere sacrifice of praise or a sacrifice of the people. Anything possibly offensive to protestants, no matter of how much benefit to the people such as the intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary, was removed in the name of “ecumenism” and “simplicity” and new vague language replaced the clear and concise established Tradition of the TLM. I could go on and on, but again, the NO mass is a New Order that was created rather than that was an organic development of Tradition. Yes, it was approved by Paul VI, so it is a licit mass, but the changes were a step towards protestantism and away from established Tradition. Read the book “Problems with the New Mass” by Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D… It points out the subtractions made and offers a critical study of the NO. catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1011395/Problems-New-Mass/ Here’s another short affordable book on the subject: catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1011403/Problems-Prayers-Modern-Mass/

The laws of the Church are embodied in Canon law. What may be a law in the current code may not be a law in a future code.

So when did Quo Primum say that it was making an addition to canon law? That document was not canon law; it was the establishment of a perpetual law that would be on the books forever, a law which you have still not proven that any pope has undone.

To this I will simply say that you have a misunderstanding of what exactly Quo Primum says.

That’s funny because you made this same claim after I had simply quoted the text itself. It seems you think the text itself must be reduced to meaningless before one “understands it properly” meaning agrees with the spin you seem to want to place on it. You claimed in your explanation that all the language back then was absolute whereas today it’s just different. If you are comparing that encyclical with modern ones, then yes, you are certainly correct. Modern conciliar encyclicals have an altogether different nature than those prior to Vatican II, as they tend to implore more vague wording and tend to make less absolute statements and declarations. That said, if your understanding is correct of Quo Primum, you will have to provide all the other so called absolute statements from that time where they state things like “forever” but really mean only for right now and then prove such intention from their own contexts. I’m assuming for you to make such a conclusion, you would have already done so, right? Otherwise, you would just be trying to re-interpret a historical text to fit the understanding you want it to mean.

Again, the Church is ruled by the laws of the Church. Bishops and priests are, according to Canon law, bound to celebrate Mass by the current Missal, the Missal of Pope Paul VI, not the Missal of Pope John XXIII. With this siege mentality of yours, bishops and priests can refute obedience to the current pontiff by claiming obedience to a pontiff from 400 years ago. It doesn’t work that way. Really, I don’t know how to say it any differently.

Ok, so can you show me where Paul VI said that only the NO mass had to be celebrated and that the priests had no other option but that they were bound to celebrate that mass and were NOT permitted to offer up the Holy Sacrifice according to the Gregorian Rite. (Btw, on a side note, Pope Benedict calls the EF the “Gregorian Rite” because it dates back to the 500s with Pope Gregory the Great. It has its roots much earlier, but that is when the TLM as we know it in history was canonized by a pope in that form.)

 

[una_fides]

You are correct that if a pope declares something to be part of the deposit of faith, then no future pope can change that. The job of the pope is to protect the deposit of faith. But when it comes to changes in discipline, and the liturgy falls under discipline, then one pope can make changes to what another pope has done. Simply, a pope cannot today declare what all future pontiffs must do in terms of discipline. They can’t. Sorry. I don’t know what else to say.

By the way, the last two infallible declarations, where the pope speaks from the Chair of Peter, were the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950(?) and the Immcaulate Conception of Mary one hundred years prior. It isn’t as if the pope is making an infallible declaration once a month.

Oh goodness, please don’t tell me you believe that popes have only made infallible declarations twice in the history of the Church. I heard a deacon utter such nonsense the other day as well. He is quite liberal and thinks that there were women priests in the past and that such is a possibility. Even JP2 said such was impossible. Anyway, I defer to Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility. If you think there have only been a few such statements, please read and study that carefully and then study papal encyclicals, and you will find several in them. They usually begin with such words as “we declare” and/or “we define” etc… followed by some universal dogma of faith or morals binding to all the faithful. This, however, is a different matter when dealing with the exact way Mass is offered.

To say that it is a mere “changeable discipline” when a pope says that a law shall be universally binding forever and cannot be changed does serious damage to the text of the encyclical and the pope’s intentions when he said that this rule of law was to be “forever” and was “unchangeable.” Now, that does not say that a future pope cannot lawfully make another missal, but it does mean that the TLM cannot be supressed:

Let’s look again at the text from Quo Primum:

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.

Again we see here that the Rite established here cannot be forbidden, and no pope has ever declared it to be such. Even this encyclical itself allowed for the use of missals older than 200 years (see text below).

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.

Notice he said “Us.” Hence, a future pope could allow another form of Mass to be celebrated since he would fall under the category of “Us;” however, no pope has ever forbidden the use of the TLM, as you seem to have admitted.

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.

Certainly if the same standard were applied with the promulgating of the NO as when the TLM was established then the TLM would meet the qualifications as being more than 200 years standing, as it has been in use for over 1500 years!! No pope has ever said that the TLM was forbidden to be celebrated, so again, as I pointed out, those priests and bishops who forbade the TLM to be celebrated at all were under the binding force of the perpetual law established in Quo Primum when that missal was established.

On another side note, the “additions” or “revisions” to that missal were not at all changes; they were organic developments of the Mass and very few additions such as prayer to St. Michael inserted at the end of Mass by Pope Leo.
…And I wonder why the NO missal removed those prayers? Could it be because they invoked the intercession of an angel, which protestants don’t look to kindly on? So basically in the name of ecumenism we loose such an amazing help through invoking the intercession of the angels and saints in the name of ecumenism… Why do you not see any problems with this thinking and practice?

 

[una_fides]

If we simply look at the history of canon law, all of which were promulgated under the authority of the Pope, we can see clear examples of Popes establishing “temporal laws” that were changed many times - the fact that one Pope says “must endure forever” does not bind a future Pope.

By your logic, all John Paul II had to say was “The 1983 code of Canon Law is hereby pronounced and must endure forever under the pain of the Wrath of God” and then “poof”, no more additions, deletions or changes to canon law forever. Does that really sound logical? Would you defend that as vigorously?

See my posts above concerning canon law. Can you find me any examples of any papal statements that have said something will remain binding forever and then it was changed by a future pope? It seems the binding part is that no one can suppress the use of this rite, but not that a future pope can’t promulgate another rite that can be celebrated. In other words, I’m not saying, like some who invoke Quo Primum do, that the document says that the NO mass is invalid or illicit. What I’m saying is that the TLM cannot be forbidden to be used. Pope Benedict XVI has said the same thing in Summorum Pontificum did he not?

 

[Timothysis]

I don’t see any bias in referring to the New Ordo of Mass as the Novus Ordo. This name is what the new mass is known by everywhere. It’s not just some “Traditionalist conspiracy” as you would make it out to be. The NO mass was created by a group of people in a committee under the influence of six Protestants.

On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.”( Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649).

No “Traditionalist conspiracy,” eh? In any event, you and I are obviously on different plains here.

 

[Timothysis]

Oh goodness, please don’t tell me you believe that popes have only made infallible declarations twice in the history of the Church. I heard a deacon utter such nonsense the other day as well. He is quite liberal and thinks that there were women priests in the past and that such is a possibility. Even JP2 said such was impossible.

Good heavens, man. I said the LAST TWO infallible declarations. So, now I’m a liberal because you didn’t even comprehend what I wrote?

By the way, the last two infallible declarations, where the pope speaks from the Chair of Peter, were the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950(?) and the Immcaulate Conception of Mary one hundred years prior. It isn’t as if the pope is making an infallible declaration once a month.

 

[malphono]

On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.”( Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649).

No “Traditionalist conspiracy,” eh? In any event, you and I are obviously on different plains here.

Not for anything, and I really don’t want to jump into this particular fray, but I have to make a comment: the timing of that particular “declaration” seems to be just a bit coincidental with Bugnini’s “reassignment” to the diplomatic corps in January of that year, and even more so with the public admission of certain allegations against Bugnini a scant few weeks earlier.

 

[Timothysis]

Not for anything, and I really don’t want to jump into this particular fray, but I have to make a comment: the timing of that particular “declaration” seems to be just a bit coincidental with Bugnini’s “reassignment” to the diplomatic corps in January of that year, and even more so with the public admission of certain allegations against Bugnini a scant few weeks earlier.

And your point is…???

 

[malphono]

And your point is…???

If one reads between the lines, it should be quite clear. Think about it a minute.

 

[una_fides]

Good heavens, man. I said the LAST TWO infallible declarations. So, now I’m a liberal because you didn’t even comprehend what I wrote?

No problem. I realize that you said that, but I wasn’t sure what you meant to imply by it. What I wrote was directed to those who hold to views like that deacon I mentioned. If you concede that there have been other infallible papal declarations and don’t try to narrow papal infallibility down to a virtually meaningless formula or one only invoked only a few times in history, then I admit my statements should not have been directed to you, in which case consider them more just venting of my frustrations with this deacon with whom btw I will be likely debating tonight. Pray for him and our discussion.
Regardless, these things are incidentals and are not the primary point we are discussing. When you get a chance, I am interested in how you will respond to the other points I raised concerning the irrevocable status of the TLM and the fact that it was never officially prohibited by the pope (unless you can find me a document that says it was).

 

[una_fides]

On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.”( Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649).

No “Traditionalist conspiracy,” eh? In any event, you and I are obviously on different plains here.

So can you please elaborate on the purpose of the protestant observers? And isn’t it coincidental that the NO mass the emerged from those proceedings struck out those parts of the Mass most offensive to protestants (which incidentally and most unfortunately happen to also be some of the most significant helps to our salvation and to the repression of evil.) While they may not have “composed” the actual texts themselves, they were observers who were there for a reason. It would make sense that their opinions were sought as to what parts of the Mass were most offensive or troubling to them and to their heretical understandings of Christianity, as it was those parts that got the axe, and it was the rest of the wording that was altered and changed into a much more vague and watered down presentation of the teachings and traditions of the Church. I admit that I have not studied and read a great deal on the deliberations in Vatican II and have not read much on the first hand accounts of what took place. You can read the first hand account from Archbishop Lefebvre in his “Open Letter to Confused Catholics.” I read that book a while ago and can’t recall his exact account as to the degree of participation or influence these protestants had, but either way, their presence at all should be quite disturbing especially considering the end result being a mass lacking such clear Catholic teachings that were overtly present in the former.
That said, I am curious if you have studied the differences between the liturgies and the changes to the wordings in the two rites and the many prayers that were cut out and the reasons why?

 

[PJM]

=ConservativeOne;4916566]I’ve read the books years ago, and I’m tired. I’m just forgetting. But I just read a post that has me wondering. A “Novus Ordo” friend (someone who regularly attends NO) - has told me time and again that the Tridentine Mass was never “forbidden”. To my knowledge, it could not be - it was set to be “in perpetuity”.

But I think the post I just read was that the Moto Proprio will say the Tridentine Mass CANNOT BE forbidden…Either, I’m tired or reading it wrong or it was the poster’s words.
I thought the Tridentine Mass could NEVER be forbidden - it was “in perpetuity” - right? Technically, it wasn’t forbidden but, shall we say, replaced by the Novus Ordo. So, why say it can’t be forbidden - if it never was?
Exhausted.

Dear friend in Christ,

The Latin Mass was never “forbidden” it was merely shelfed and replaced by a new improved version, by insistence of a great many bishops.

It was never intended by Rome or the magistrium to take today’s oh so ordinary form.

What used to be the “Ordinary” as in common use form of the Liturgy, the Latin Mass, has now become the “Extrodinary Form,” which is to say the alternative form of the Liturgy.

I find some sad humor in the fact that a form of Sacred Liturgy that is God Centric, not “we are the church,” has gained the term “Extrodinary,” for indeed that is exactly what it is. It also happens to be the alternative form of Sacred Liturgy, and now approved without ones Bishops permission, which itself is an EXTRODINARY proclaimation!

Love and prayers,

 

[una_fides]

Dear friend in Christ,

The Latin Mass was never “forbidden” it was merely shelfed and replaced by a new improved version, by insistence of a great many bishops.

It was never intended by Rome or the magistrium to take today’s oh so ordinary form.

What used to be the “Ordinary” as in common use form of the Liturgy, the Latin Mass, has now become the “Extrodinary Form,” which is to say the alternative form of the Liturgy.

I find some sad humor in the fact that a form of Sacred Liturgy that is God Centric, not “we are the church,” has gained the term “Extrodinary,” for indeed that is exactly what it is. It also happens to be the alternative form of Sacred Liturgy, and now approved without ones Bishops permission, which itself is an EXTRODINARY proclaimation!

Love and prayers,

I do not see how the NO mass would be considered an “improved version” of the Mass since they cut out such important and foundational parts of the Traditional Mass and changed and altered the remaining prayers and added in new ones with vague wording. Calling it “improved” also doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of your post when you explained how the NO mass is more focused on man rather than God.

 

[DavidPalm]

That said, I am curious if you have studied the differences between the liturgies and the changes to the wordings in the two rites and the many prayers that were cut out and the reasons why?

There is a good essay on this by Fr. Hugh Thwaites, S.J. entitled Was Dom Gueranger right after all?. It was published in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, which is not exactly known as a “rad trad” rag. Fr. Thwaites asks:

But is the text of the Mass now so ecumenical that it is no longer Catholic? There is no question, of course, about the validity of our daily Masses. They are the same holy Sacrifice that has been offered on the altars of the Church since the day of Pentecost. The fact that it was Rome that gave it to us is sufficient guarantee of that. However doubtful or ambiguous the theology of the text, the validity of the sacrament can never be called into question. The question here is: Is the text of the new Mass now so ecumenical that it sometimes no longer expresses our traditional Catholic faith?

When I suggest that this is so, people rally to its defense. “But that’s just the ICEL translation. The Mass itself is still completely Catholic. It’s just the way they’ve translated it.” However, a closer look shows that the compilers of the new missal left nothing to chance. They gave a decidedly Protestant slant to the original texts.

He notes:

We are living through what in some parts of the Church is a mass apostasy. And maybe the new Mass, which came from Paul VI’s desire to bring Protestants back to the faith of their ancestors, has, for some Catholics, done just the opposite: it has brought them to think and believe and behave like Protestants.

Msgr. Klaus Gamber, who has been so highly praised by Cardinal Ratzinger, had similar things to say:

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. This is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology–for example, references to a God who judges and punishes. (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 100)

I suppose these men and others can all be dismissed as conspiracy nuts and cranks. But I do think if one looks at the missals side-by-side, some pretty clear patterns emerge. I think it helps, too, to explain why such men as Msgr. Bugnini were so keen on having the Pope give at least the impression that the Gregorian rite had been formally suppressed and why so many bishops were only too glad to foster that impression.

 

[Timothysis]

So can you please elaborate on the purpose of the protestant observers?

There were protestant observers at the Council of Trent, too. I wonder what their purpose was and has the Church, since 1570, had a protestant slant to it as a result?

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Paul VI reformed the Roman Missal.

Bugnini wanted to do this. Pope Paul (or rather Cardinal Gut) promulgated the Novus Ordo, the Pope’s own words.

To this I will simply say that you have a misunderstanding of what exactly Quo Primum says.

I don’t think there’s any ambiguity in Quo Primum, unlike the “wishing and hoping” which surrounds the Novus Ordo.

Bishops and priests are, according to Canon law, bound to celebrate Mass by the current Missal, the Missal of Pope Paul VI, not the Missal of Pope John XXIII.

I’m sure a lot of Eastern Catholics would not accept such a statement.

With this siege mentality of yours, bishops and priests can refute obedience to the current pontiff by claiming obedience to a pontiff from 400 years ago.

Yes, but what you’re really trying to say is that Pope Paul VI had a right to not only defy Pope Pius V but all the Popes after him for not seeing the same light as Pope Paul, is that not right? If so, what would be the pastoral value of such a behavior on Pope Paul’s part?

the liturgy falls under discipline

Very misleading statement. The Sacrifice of the Mass doesn’t and cannot change. No valid Mass falls in the category of discipline only. Very undermining term.

 

[Timothysis]

Bugnini wanted to do this. Pope Paul (or rather Cardinal Gut) promulgated the Novus Ordo, the Pope’s own words.

So who was it? Archbishop Bugnini, Pope Paul or Cardinal Gut who promulgated the new missal? Oh, you say “*Pope Paul… promulgated the Novus Ordo, the Pope’s own words.”

• I guess that’s why its referred to as the Missal of Pope Paul VI or the Pauline Missal!

I don’t think there’s any ambiguity in Quo Primum, unlike the “wishing and hoping” which surrounds the Novus Ordo.

Your opinion. I still don’t think that you properly understand the meaning of the language in Quo Primum. This is one of those point that really floors me. Pope St. Pius X, the bulwark of Traditionalism, revised the Roman Breviary in 1911.

*"Quod a Vobis says this about the Breviary, just as Quo Primum says about the Roman Missal:

"Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should 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." *

And yet, not one so called “traditionalist” has a problem with the revised breviary, even though Quod a Vobis has the exact same prohibition against any future changes!!! Is Pope St. Pius X a heretic or schismatic for his actions? You tell me.

I’m sure a lot of Eastern Catholics would not accept such a statement.

Eastern Catholics are not bound by Canon law; they are bound by the law of their respective disciplines.

Yes, but what you’re really trying to say is that Pope Paul VI had a right to not only defy Pope Pius V but all the Popes after him for not seeing the same light as Pope Paul, is that not right? If so, what would be the pastoral value of such a behavior on Pope Paul’s part?

If Pope Paul is guilty, then so is Pope Urban VII, Pope Clement XII, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X and Pope John XXIII, since they all ordered changes in the missal. And let’s not forget about Popes Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius X who did the same for the breviary, with the same “prohibition” against any future changes.

Very misleading statement. The Sacrifice of the Mass doesn’t and cannot change. No valid Mass falls in the category of discipline only. Very undermining term.

If the Sacrifice of the Mass “doesn’t and cannot change,” then why are you so opposed to the Pauline Missal?

 

[ProVobis]

So who was it? Archbishop Bugnini, Pope Paul or Cardinal Gut who promulgated the new missal?

Good question.

I still don’t think that you properly understand the meaning of the language in Quo Primum.

And this is your opinion.

Eastern Catholics are not bound by Canon law; they are bound by the law of their respective disciplines.

I believe where Canon Law uses the term “A Catholic rite” this includes most valid Eastern and Orthodox rites as well.

If Pope Paul is guilty, then so is Pope Urban VII, Pope Clement XII, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X and Pope John XXIII, since they all ordered changes in the missal.

So who’s saying Pope Paul is guilty of anything? It’s misinterpreting his statements that’s at issue.

And let’s not forget about Popes Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius X who did the same for the breviary, with the same “prohibition” against any future changes.

So when has doing the breviary, unlike the Mass, become obligatory for all Catholics?