Fr. Hewko's answer?

Prescinding from commenting upon the dispute between l'Abbe Hewko and M. Johnson, Abbe Hewko makes an interesting argument at 11:19 and 38:20, where he says that no pope can create new rites for the Church (elsewhere implying that if he did so, these new rites would not be Catholic, and therefore Trent would not apply).

But if I understand Pope Pius XII correctly, he says precisely the opposite:

"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."

Right. That's why the whole "illicit" argument is silly, the Pope most certainly can introduce new rites.

Well where does that leave Quo Primum then, which said the old Mass cannot be changed?

Nobody is talking about changing the TLM, but about the authority of the pope to create new rites.  Or are you suggesting Pius XII was wrong?

Greg Taylor responds

In Re: SJ is a Dishonest, Deceitful Buffoon who Needs to Stop Writing Garbage

If you compare the two, M. Johnson's article has the tone and tenor of a serious reflection, while M. Taylor's seems more of an internet rant.

I note M. Johnson's article is primarily theological, while M. Taylor's is mostly historical, and again that M. Taylor spills much ink refuting an argument M. Johnson is not making (i.e., M. Taylor is writing against attending the new Mass; M. Johnson is writing about whether or not grace passes).

I will say that M. Taylor's rant is often self-contradictory.  In one section he wants to refute M. Johnson's claim that Msgr. Lefebvre said one could satisfy their Sunday obligation, but seems to end up acknowledging the point: 

For example, Msgr. Lefebvre "but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfil their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass.  M. Johnson's claim precisely.

The rambling nature of this piece suggests to me that Abbe Hewko's followers are having difficulty dealing with M. Johnson's argumnts, and are frustrated by them.  

It also seems rather to affirm M. Johnson's contention that Abbe Hewko does not distinguish between sacrament and rite, and M. Taylor defends him for not doing so.  That is a curious defense, since it is patently false.  

M. Taylor's letter hurts his side more than it helps it.  

SJ's comments were quite twisted on Trent. It's nice he wants to defend HE Bishop Williamson but Trent - which is above both of them - clearly states that anyone who touches or changes the sacraments is cursed. Quo Primum says who every touches the Mass is cursed. End of story for traditional Catholics. 

And leave Sean Johnson alone.