CathInfo.com

PFT wrote:

Just to be clear, neither the words "utterly discard" or "abrogated" were used to apply to the traditional rite, when this "NEW RITE" (as Pius XII himself calls it) was added. I noticed that right away about this docuмent.

The decree stated, "All things to the contrary notwithstanding."  Do you understand what that means?

PFT wrote

Pius XII never said that one could not use the traditional Rite either. No where in this docuмent does it say that.

The decree states:

1.   The restored Order of Holy Week is prescribed

2.  Those who follow the Roman rite are bound to observe in the future the restored Order of Holy Week, as described in the typical Vatican edition. Those who follow other Latin rites are bound to observe only the time set in the new Order for the liturgical functions.

3.  This new Order must be observed from March 25, 1956, the Second Passion Sunday, or Palm Sunday.

The decree speaks for itself.  All are bound to use the restored order of the Holy Week.

PFT wrote:

I'm a bit confused here, as some of these paragraphs you had included in the one you put in the library version of Maxima Redemptionis Nostrae Mysteria, when I translated from Latin, are not contained here. Where did you get your translation? This is where I got mine.

This translation was posted on the Bellarmine Forums found HERE.

I have a translation from the AER, if I can find it I will scan it for you as well.  

PFT wrote:

The one you posted in the library appears to be two separate docuмents.

There was a second decree relevant to the first, so it was included.

PFT wrote:

It would be helpful if you provided a link to your source.

There are two dates on the docuмent you linked. One from 1955, one from 1957. So where's the other one? I would like to source both of them if you don't mind.

They are both found on that same link on the Bellarmine Forums.  

If you actually listened to Fr. Hesse, he takes full responsibility for HIMSELF for doing things the traditional way, and not the "new rite" that Pius XII "prescribed and approved" (again in Pius XII's own words.)  

I never discussed this with Fr. Hesse, but I have no reason to doubt your word.  As I sated before, we are living in confusing times, and I am not throwing stones at individuals, but I am upholding objective truth.  

The rite approved by the Pope is Tradition. The Pope is Tradition (Pius IX).

May Fr. Hesse rest in peace.

Again, Ambrose, the Missal of Pius V has never been, and cannot be, abrogated. So it doesn't matter, even if the office that handed down this docuмent said "all things to the contrary notwithstanding" because Quo Primum trumps that by saying this:

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.

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Again, Ambrose, the Missal of Pius V has never been, and cannot be, abrogated. So it doesn't matter, even if the office that handed down this docuмent said "all things to the contrary notwithstanding" because Quo Primum trumps that by saying this:

Quote

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.

Is not the truth what all of us seek?  If your idea that a Pope can bind his successors were true, then you should have no problem providing authorities to support such a view.  But, I can assure you that this has never been taught and all authorities that have explained this state exactly what I am telling you.

An equal cannot bind an equal.  A Pope cannot bind his successors.  Why is this such a difficult concept for you to believe?

What you're saying is partially true, but Quo Primum was binding on a MATTER OF FAITH, and Father Hesse aptly explains this, as do other good traditional priests like Fr. Perez, and Fr. Kramer.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was commanded by the Council of Trent to be codified. NOTHING NEW was added at that time, and it was canonized as something that already existed.

This was NOT a matter of discipline to codify the Mass. This was a matter of FAITH. The Apostolic Bull Quo Primum was NOT a disciplinary docuмent. It was a matter of the Faith. It has all of the hallmarks of a BINDING docuмent.

This is where you're wrong, though. You say that a "pope cannot bind his successors" but you don't say WHEN a pope cannot bind his successors. HE CANNOT BIND HIS SUCCESSORS ON MATTERS OF DISCIPLINE, which Quo Primum is NOT.

A pope MOST DEFINITELY CAN BIND HIS SUCCESSORS ON MATTERS OF FAITH, because matters of Faith are IMMUTABLE. Just ONE example of this is a Dogma, like the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If a pope cannot bind his successors ever, then everything is open to change.