Both comments above are ridiculous. They confuse two distinct matters: priestly rights and priestly duties. The intrinsic right of a priest to celebrate the True Mass in the form codified by Pius V, whether privately or publicly, is what Quo primum concerns. The right to celebrate a public Mass in a given diocese, however, requires formal incardination (or temporary permission for nondiocesan and visiting priests). This latter is a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, not doctrine.

But the crisis in the Church, which may reasonably be thought to include unjust exclusion from incardination of Traditional clergy, has led many inexorably to the concept of supplied jurisdiction.

The fact that Pius V did not mention incardination does not give one the right to assume that he forgot all about it. Indeed, it's absurd to assume any such thing. It is equally absurd to assume that SSPX, independent, and SV priests haven't figured out that they are not incardinated and, furthermore, completely misread Quo primum! I doubt, too, whether even one in twenty laymen who attend an ecclesia supplet Mass are as confused as the OP.

A far better question than the silly one the OP raised would have been this: what impact, if any, has the power of the Keys had on Quo primum? It would make nonsense of this power if one pontiff could not change a nondogmatic decree of another. So the question is whether any of the postconciliar popes formally acted to make Quo primum a dead letter. Benedict XVI claimed none did, whereas Father Cekada claims Paul VI did. Either way, Summorum pontificuм made the dispute moot—or at least may be said to have done so till Bishop Frank declares it null and void.

"NO CATHOLIC PRIEST, WHETHER ORDER PRIEST OR DIOCESAN PRIEST, NEEDS ANYBODY'S PERMISSION TO CONTINUE OFFERING THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS OF ST. PIUS V, ANYWHERE AND ANYTIME, WITH OR WITHOUT PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE." (FATHER GOMMAR A. DE PAUW, FOUNDER-PRESIDENT OF
THE CATHOLIC TRADITIONALIST MOVEMENT, INC)

The well-known Fr. De Pauw, who many have called a founder of the "Traditional Mass Movement". statement, no Catholic priest... needs anybody's permission (not even a Bishop's) to (say the Latin Mass) anywhere anytime ..."[/i], is contrary to the Church's teaching that a priest to do anything, must work through the One True Hierarchy, established on St. Peter and His Successors. That is he must have Canonical Mission (permission) to offer any Sacraments.

This type of false interpretation of St. Pius V's Quo Primum, has caused chaos for decades in what its adherents have coined, the Traditional" Movement.

Quote from: Guest

I keep forgetting that you guys/girls actually recognize the Freemasons who have stolen the Church's property as your authority.

Yeah, we and others like us are known as Catholics.

Furthermore, Catholic is what we'll remain until someone a lot smarter than you demonstrates that you have the God-given authority to declare that the papal elections of the past fifty years were formally deficient and that the conciliar popes are genuine formal heretics. Good luck with both, especially the latter, since the interior moral and doctrinal state of a pope, as every saint and Church-approved theologian in Church history has declared, is a matter that no layman or cleric—not even you and your best pals—has the authority to judge.

When will you and others like you wake up to the fact that popes are not immune from the same consequences of original sin that dog the rest of mankind? Election by a legitimate conclave does not make the one elected immune from decisions and actions that are pointless, weak, or downright wicked. Your juvenile and ignorant notion that a bad pope is ipso facto not pope is about as un-Catholic as it's possible for any notion to be.

—claudel