I saw that FSSP thread in the anonymous posts section and I want to start a discussion about it here. Here's my theory on "Rome approved" TLM's (trad latin masses), and the jurisdiction "problem" for "independent" TLM's (sspx, others, etc).
I've been thinking about this for a while, here's my thesis:
Before Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio, the Church was in public doubt as to the jurisdictional status of "independent" TLM's because everyone in the Church acted as if the TLM was revoked, due to Paul VI's new missal. This doubt caused everyone to assume that the TLM was revoked (and by extension, Quo Primum) which would make "independent" TLM's jurisdictionally "unapproved".
But Pope Benedict cleared away all this doubt. He stated multiple times (both in his Motu and his letter to Bishops), that the 1962 missal, which is a legal revision of Pope St Pius V's Missal, and a legal revision to Quo Primum, is valid and not revoked. Ergo, Quo Primum and the 1962 missal are law.
Quo Primum is not reformable ("...legal revision..."). That part is incorrect. It cannot be changed. It exists for all time, in perpetuity, as it was, is, and ever shall be. Period.
Now, Quo Primum commands multiple things. It gives permission for ANY priest to say it's missal, anywhere, under any circuмstances, without any permission from ANY bishop or superior BECAUSE the permission comes directly from the Papacy. Ergo, any priest who says this missal HAS JURISDICTION. No ifs, ands or buts.
To be clear, the papacy from which
QP comes is that of Pope St. Pius V, in 1571. Just as with any other infallible decree, it does not rely on the current pope for its effectiveness. For example, we are not obliged to believe in the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady and her Assumption body and soul into heaven only because the current pope agrees with it. These are defined dogmas of the faith, with a date of definition and a content, and a Pope who defined them. (They also have a Denzinger number, but that's not inherently necessary, because Denzinger is not an official publication of the Church, therefore since
Quo Primum has no Denzinger number, that doesn't mean it's not infallible.)
The topic is the
faith of Catholics, since the way we pray (the Mass) establishes the way we believe the faith. It is also regarding
morals, since no pastor of the Church has the ability to demand of us that we stop assisting at a TLM, even for fulfilling our Sunday obligation. Therefore, it is in regards to
both faith and morals.Further, Quo Primum commands that no one can be FORCED to use any missal except his, that no changes, deletions or additions can be made and you can't use ANY OTHER missal except his (i.e. the 1962 missal). Ergo, Paul VI's missal is illegal.
QP does not forbid the celebration of the Syrian rite or the Coptic rite or any of the other liturgies for example using St. John Chrysostom's Mass.
However, it does forbid the use of any new rites that had emerged during the previous 200 years prior to 1570, specifically. It does not, however, say that it forbids any new emergence of a new rite in the future. That's actually unfortunate, as it turns out. We can only wish that it had done so.
The NovusOrdo liturgy might seem to be illegal, but that is what Councils of the Church are for, and episcopal authority under legitimate ordinary jurisdiction. It is not our place to go around telling Novordiens that they're in 'sin' by following their bishop's directives. We have been given the grace to see where the true Mass endures, but they haven't, so we can pray for them and be gentle with them and suffer for them and DO PENANCE for them, but we cannot tell them that we forbid them to obey their bishop. We have no ordinary jurisdiction to say that.
By controlling ourselves we actually please God by accepting this OUR CROSS to do penance for the Holy Father and our local bishops who currently are SO BLIND, or whatever it is.
Finally, he binds all Catholics to all this by penalty of a serious disobedience to the Pope himself.
All this being said, since Quo Primum is still in effect, then it follows that
1. Anyone who says the TLM is "approved" by the Papacy, by law. Who cares what "Rome" says, what matters is what the "Church" says. In our day and age, "Rome" does not equal the "Church".
Your defect is in saying, "Who cares what 'Rome' says." It is an infallible dogma of the Church that we are to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for our salvation. Therefore, we must care what "Rome" says.
However, we already have the longstanding and arguably infallible decree of
Quo Primum, which says in perpetuity that no pastor of the Church "of whatever rank" (that includes the Pope!) has the authority to forbid any priest from offering Mass according to this missal (of A.D. 1571).
Quo primum temopore was printed inside the front cover of every altar missal ever published until John XXIII allowed it to be omitted in 1960 --
the year the Third Secret should have been revealed.............
.............Of course, this is merely a coincidence. HAHAHAHAHAHA
While it might be of comfort to you to say "Rome does not equal the Church," it is not your place or mine to pass judgment on the pope, but it IS within the power of
Quo Primum to prevent any pope from forbidding a priest to offer a TLM.
2. ANYONE who says, approves, condones, attends, etc, etc ANY novus ordo mass is committing a serious sin of disobedience to the Pope because they are disobeying a law of the Church. This includes anyone who is "under Rome", since they have publicly condoned the novus ordo and have to say it regularly in some capacity.
Quo Primum does not forbid the practice of any of the Eastern Church liturgies, does it? So how do you figure that it prohibits the practice of the NovusOrdo liturgy, after all, the MPSP acknowledges the TLM as "never abrogated."
If only St. Pius V had had the foresight to say that no 'replacement' liturgy could ever relegate the TLM to second place status by displacing it, he would have precluded the NovusOrdoNonsense; but at the time, that probably would have seemed like a
ridiculous eventuality.
Again, you presume to have the authority of the Church to say "2. ANYONE...", and you have no such authority.
Therefore what you say here is false. Etc....
2a. This also includes any FSSP or diocesan latin mass. You can't attend under pain of sin, because they formally and publicly accept the novus ordo. Ergo, just as Catholics could not attend the Anglican masses in England during Henry VIII because their clergy formally accepted heresy, no Catholic can attend a mass where the priest accepts a publicly unlawful and disobedient act (and I would argue, immoral and heretical too. Generally, one cannot say that ALL novus ordo masses are heresy, but some do contain heretical ideas. But that's another discussion...)
3. It doesn't matter if novus ordo consecrations are "valid", the entire mass is illegal and disobedient, ergo sinful. "Rome" can condone it, allow it, promote it, etc, etc all they want. But "rome" is not the Church. Anyone in Rome can disobey Church law just like we can and lose their soul. In addition, even if a novus ordo consecration is "valid" does not mean it's "acceptable" (i.e. moral) in God's eyes and it certainly doesn't change it's legal status. A satanic mass can have a "valid" consecration, in theory.
There's certainly many, many things that follow from this line of reasoning, but those are the top 3.
The number of errors that proceed from one error has no limit.
What you are doing is proceeding to multiply your errors.
.