There is a key teaching of the church to remember as we consider the Crisis in the Church:

Is it possible for the Church to legislate harmful laws and promulgate disciplines that are dangerous to the faith?

It seems that the belief that this IS possible is the basis for many traditionalists to go to certain lengths in their rejection of the mass of Paul Vi, even ad Orientim, in Latin, in Traditional Vestments at a Reredos.

Now, it would perhaps be a good idea to inquire as to what the Church teaches herself on this subject. Does the Church teach or condemn the teaching that the Church can legislate harmful laws and disciplines?

Well, she apparently condemns this notion.

Church teaching on the subject:

Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, 1794, condemns:

"...in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism",
—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

 (again, this was condemned).

Also, Pope Gregory XVI in Quo Graviora (1833) states,

"The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?”

Here is a link to the Bull Auctorem Fide:
http://www.churchmilitant.tv/cia/05rebellion/12.pdf

SO:

The basis for our resistance to the Novus Ordo Mass, even celebrated impeccably is that it is intrinsically evil. And yet, the basis for that resistance is the understanding that the Church can establish harmful and dangerous laws, since they are not directly subject to infallibility. And yet the Church herself condemns this is possible, especially in the context of when "Traditionalists" of the time (The Hyper-Augustinian Jansenists) were trying to separate the wheat from the Chaff in terms of the Church's established discipline.

How then can our methodology of Resistance of those things legislated by the Church on the supposition of them being "evil" be justified when the basis of resistance is condemned?

R&R tries to circuмvent disciplinary infallibility using the non-promulgation dodge.

The canon has nothing to do with the Mass of Paul VI. That mass was not reformed on the basis of calling the Tridentine Mass "Impious" but through an attempt to return the Roman Liturgy to its ungallicanized form. None of it having to do with calling anything in the Tridentine Mass impious. So how is it relevant? And where was anything legislated regarding the Mads of Paul VI that referred to anything in the Tridentine mass as impious?

What does the text promulgation the Roman Missal of 1969 say?


http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html

Nothing here mentioned deprecates the Mass or says anything was impious. It is actually a good thing to provide a format for priestly concelebration in Mass, given every other Catholic Liturgy supports this. And it IS true that historically the Mass of Rome was rather simple. That being said I don't think it's wise to make such sweeping changes, but I also blame the method in which they were implemented.

Be all that as it may: how is this canon applicable?

But we know it WAS promulgated, because:

"In the 30 April 1969 Acta Apostolicae Sedis we find the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, bearing Paul VI’s signature. Its heading: “Apostolic Constitution. By which the Roman Missal, restored by decree of Vatican Ecuмenical Council II, is promulgated. Paul, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, for an Everlasting Memorial.

  The legislation, obviously, then meets the simple canonical norm for promulgation. The Supreme Legislator needs no Decree from a Cardinal for his law to “take.” The New Mass is promulgated, and the law is binding.

      In the text of the Constitution, moreover, Paul VI makes it abundantly clear that his will is to impose the obligation of a law on his subjects. Note in particular his language in the following passages:

      •  The General Instruction preceding the New Order of Mass “imposes new rules for celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice.”[13]

      •  “We have decreed that three new Canons be added to this Prayer [the Roman Canon].”[14]

      •  “We have ordered that the words of the Lord be one and the same formula in each Canon.”[15]

      •  “And so, it is Our will that these words be thus said in every Eucharistic Prayer.”[16]

      •  “All of which things we have prescribed by this, Our Constitution, shall begin to take effect from 30 November of this year.”[17]

      •  “It is Our will that these laws and prescriptions be, and they shall be, firm and effective now and in the future.”[18]

      The standard Latin canonical terms a pope customarily employs to make a law are all present here: normae, praescripta, statuta, proponimus, statuimus, jussimus, volumus, praescripsimus, etc."

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

Fr. Hesse has blown all your little pseudo-affirmations out of the water time and time again.

Do you have a way of unwriting reality? Because it's fairly cut and dried without delving into mere hearsay.

But we know it WAS promulgated, because:

"In the 30 April 1969 Acta Apostolicae Sedis we find the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, bearing Paul VI’s signature. Its heading: “Apostolic Constitution. By which the Roman Missal, restored by decree of Vatican Ecuмenical Council II, is promulgated. Paul, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, for an Everlasting Memorial.

  The legislation, obviously, then meets the simple canonical norm for promulgation. The Supreme Legislator needs no Decree from a Cardinal for his law to “take.” The New Mass is promulgated, and the law is binding.

      In the text of the Constitution, moreover, Paul VI makes it abundantly clear that his will is to impose the obligation of a law on his subjects. Note in particular his language in the following passages:

      •  The General Instruction preceding the New Order of Mass “imposes new rules for celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice.”[13]

      •  “We have decreed that three new Canons be added to this Prayer [the Roman Canon].”[14]

      •  “We have ordered that the words of the Lord be one and the same formula in each Canon.”[15]

      •  “And so, it is Our will that these words be thus said in every Eucharistic Prayer.”[16]

      •  “All of which things we have prescribed by this, Our Constitution, shall begin to take effect from 30 November of this year.”[17]

      •  “It is Our will that these laws and prescriptions be, and they shall be, firm and effective now and in the future.”[18]

      The standard Latin canonical terms a pope customarily employs to make a law are all present here: normae, praescripta, statuta, proponimus, statuimus, jussimus, volumus, praescripsimus, etc."

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

None of this matters.  No priest has been given permission, let alone commanded, to use the new missal.    And until permission is given to do otherwise, Pope Pius V's prohibition of using any other missal  stands.

"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever....We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed" - Quo Primum

Pure smoke and mirrors.  

Quote from: ihsv

None of this matters.  No priest has been given permission, let alone commanded, to use the new missal.    And until permission is given to do otherwise, Pope Pius V's prohibition of using any other missal  stands.

 

What?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: ihsv

None of this matters.  No priest has been given permission, let alone commanded, to use the new missal.    And until permission is given to do otherwise, Pope Pius V's prohibition of using any other missal  stands.

 

What's the facepalm for?

Putting aside the question of whether or not the Paul VI had the authority to overturn Quo Primum (whose decrees, I hope we can agree, are much more than a mere matter of "discipline"), is it not so that it would require nothing less than a papal promulgation of equal clarity, equal unambiguousness, equally binding force, equally clearly manifested intention as what St. Pius V gave the Church in Quo Primum to do so? Because Paul VI objectively did not fulfill that requirement. An ambiguous "suggestion" followed by near-universal adherence to that "suggestion" still does not overturn an explicit law. If papal whim is of equally binding force as explicitly pronounced papal decree, then why have explicitly pronounced papal decrees in the first place?

Exactly.  Well put.