[Pax Vobis]

Here we have it in the man's own words.  So you're basically finished with this.

A pope's commentary on a law is not a law.  What does the law actually say?  It obligates no one.  Quo Primum is still in effect and has multiple obligations.  As the Constitution outweighs a state law or a state law outweighs a local ordinance, so a binding law outweighs a non-binding one.

In theory, Pope Paul VI had all the authority in the world to change or revoke Quo Primum, but he did not.  Go read his 'apostolic consitution'.  All he did was issue a new missal.  It was not imposed on anyone at all, nor did he even use his apostolic authority to issue it, but he only referenced the 'council's authority'  (so it's debatable if it's even lawful, because a council cannot issue anything, because it's not a person.)  But assuming it's lawful, it's another legal mindgame.

If there was any question as to what Paul VI did, Benedict cleared the matter once and for all in his legal docuмent, the "motu".

[Pax Vobis]

Paul VI:  "The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful."

A pope's commentary on a law is not a law.

[Ladislaus]

A pope's commentary on a law is not a law.

You were citing his intentions before.  This is not a "commentary", it's an explanation of his intentions.  HE was the one who issued said law.  It's not like he was commenting on some law put in place by John XXIII.

[Pax Vobis]

Pope Benedict:
As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.  At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.


What Paul VI said was true:  The priests and faithful do not have authority to do whatever they want in regards to the new mass.  They must follow the orders of the pope.  Yet, Paul VI NEVER edited or revoked the old mass; the bishops said he did, but his docuмent says otherwise.  Further, since he did not edit or revoke Quo Primum, then the papal law on the books says that we MUST ONLY ATTEND Pope St Pius V's mass, which is the current 1962 missal.  And we are NOT ALLOWED to attend any other mass using any other missal.

This is not a "commentary", it's an explanation of his intentions.

His intentions were not put into law.  That's a fact.  If they were, he would have had to edit/revoke Quo Primum, which forbids what he is intending, and he (and all the modernists) know it.

[Pax Vobis]

There's NO ARGUMENT you can make for the new mass.  There is NO legal support for it whatsoever.  Quo Primum is law and it forbids the new mass.  It's not even debatable. 

[Pax Vobis]

Thank you everyone for getting past 100 pages!  :applause:    :cheers: 

[Cantarella]

Right, and the SV says that if a pope teaches new doctrine, then he's not the pope.

That is not quite correct. If a Pope teaches a new doctrine which contradicts previous Magisterial teaching, then that is a sign that he is not the Pope.

The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.

[Ladislaus]

There's NO ARGUMENT you can make for the new mass.  There is NO legal support for it whatsoever.  Quo Primum is law and it forbids the new mass.  It's not even debatable.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/P6Illegally.pdf

[Pax Vobis]

Fr Cekada does not answer my argument.  I agree that the new mass was issued lawfully; I do dispute this.  Pope Paul VI validly and lawfully issued his new missal.  But just because it is lawful does not make it binding.

Pope St Pius V, in Quo Primum, forbids the USE of any missal besides the one he issued (which is the revised 1962 missal).  St Pius V did not forbid the issuance of a new missal but only the use of it.  --Why would anyone issue a missal that can't be used?? --  It makes no sense, but it is legal.  And that's what Paul VI did, which caused much confusion, as history shows.

An example is the prohibition of eating meat on Good Friday.  The law does not forbid one from cooking meat, just eating it.  Why would you cook meat that you will not eat?  I have no idea, but you can if you want.  In the same way, Paul VI created a new missal, but it was not binding and it was NOT ABLE TO BE USED, per Quo Primum, under pain of sin.

(Another historical fact is that Quo Primum was printed in the front of all missals up until the mid 1960s.  Eveyone knew the law and what it meant.  The new mass did not "trick" most people into accepting it; most accepted it (including priests) because they wanted it.)

[Ladislaus]

Fr Cekada does not answer my argument.  I agree that the new mass was issued lawfully; I do dispute this.  Pope Paul VI validly and lawfully issued his new missal.  But just because it is lawful does not make it binding.

Pope St Pius V, in Quo Primum, forbids the USE of any missal besides the one he issued (which is the revised 1962 missal).  St Pius V did not forbid the issuance of a new missal but only the use of it.  --Why would anyone issue a missal that can't be used?? --  It makes no sense, but it is legal.  And that's what Paul VI did, which caused much confusion, as history shows.

#1) as Fr. Cekada demonstrates, the legal language for making it binding is the same as that of Quo Primum

#2) even if it's not binding, its promulgation to the Universal Church, and the promotion of its use, suffices to ensure that it's protected by the Church's Disciplinary Infallibility

Quo Primum did NOT forbid all other rites either; it left intact the Immemorial Rites, such as the Ambrosian, etc.  But that did not mean that any priest was permitted to suddenly start using the Ambrosian Rite.  If applying your line of reasoning, one could argue that the Tridentine Rite was harmful to faith but that this did not compromise disciplinary infallibility because it left the Ambrosian Rite intact.

[Cantarella]

You fine tuned that nicely. Thank you. But did you notice the problem that creates.

Yes. It creates a problem; but then again, it also may solve a bigger problem. For example, it can provide a likely explanation of what has really happened to the Catholic Church in recent decades. 

[Pax Vobis]

#1) as Fr. Cekada demonstrates, the legal language for making it binding is the same as that of Quo Primum

No, the language for making it a LAW is the same.  The language of the law itself is non-binding.  Paul VI does not say that it must be used, does not specify who has to use it, nor does he give a penalty for not using it.  Pope St Pius V covers all these bases, explicitly and clearly.

#2) even if it's not binding, its promulgation to the Universal Church, and the promotion of its use, suffices to ensure that it's protected by the Church's Disciplinary Infallibility

Your opinion, which is overruled by a plain reading of Quo Primum and Pope Benedict.  Quo Primum is the valid law of the Church's discipline because it has limits, parameters and is clearly written.  Paul VI's law is also valid but only in the sense that it exists; it's a law which allows no action, nor does it require action, because its allowance is limited by Quo Primum (and the writers of the law knew this, which is why they resorted to passive and indirect implementation of the law, because they knew that the law allowed no direct implementation.)  All Paul VI's law does is create a new missal.  That's it.

Pope Benedict's "motu" is a legal docuмent which affirmed that Quo Primum supercedes Paul's law and, most importantly, that Paul VI's law did not TRY TO overrule Quo Primum.

As with many things which the modernists do, they APPEARED to change the law, and IMPLIED that they did, but in reading of the law we find they changed nothing.  Pope Benedict confirmed this.

Quo Primum did NOT forbid all other rites either; it left intact the Immemorial Rites, such as the Ambrosian, etc.

Quo Primum was VERY clear that it allowed a few specific exceptions (those rites which were 200 years in existence at the time).  The number of rites excepted were quite few.  All other rites not 200 years old were CLEARLY forbidden.  The law is so clear on this point.

But that did not mean that any priest was permitted to suddenly start using the Ambrosian Rite.  If applying your line of reasoning, one could argue that the Tridentine Rite was harmful to faith but that this did not compromise disciplinary infallibility because it left the Ambrosian Rite intact.

You haven't read this in a while, have you?  It's very clear.  If you go re-read Quo Primum, you will see that only those clergy who ALREADY HAD permission to use the rites which were excepted, were allowed to continue in them.  A Dominican had no permission to use the Ambrosian rite, because he was of the Dominican rite.  This did not change either before or after Quo Primum.  The Dominicans were allowed to continue to use the domincan rite (if they wanted to, they could also choose to accept Pius V's rite.  It was either-or).

The differences between Quo Primum and Paul VI's law are stark.  Paul VI did not command, authorize or penalize anyone for saying, refusing, or ignoring his law.  St Pius V did so and quite clearly, using the penalties of excommunication and disobedience to enforce his commands.

[Ladislaus]

Your opinion, which is overruled by a plain reading of Quo Primum and Pope Benedict.

Oh, so Benedict stated that the New Mass could be harmful to faith and was not protected by disciplinary infallibility?  That's a new one.

[Pax Vobis]

Oh, so Benedict stated that the New Mass could be harmful to faith and was not protected by disciplinary infallibility?  That's a new one.

I never said that, nor did Pope Benedict, nor did Paul VI or any other pope.  Benedict confirmed what all trads suspected - that Quo Primum is still in effect.  Quo Primum FORBIDS UNDER PAIN OF SIN the use of any missal except Pius V's.  Ergo, the new mass legally exists, but cannot be used.
If it is illicit/sinful to use the new mass, then it can't be protected by disciplinary infallibility, can it?  Only the true mass is protected by Disciplinary infallibility because only it is legal, moral and certainly valid.

[Pax Vobis]

A pope cannot bind his successors to any law or disciplinary matter, period...there's no argument to be had here, Pax.  

Agree.

The Roman Pontiff, being the highest authority on earth can change whatever disciplinary matters he deems fit...even matters touching the sacred liturgy.

Agree, with limitations.  The pope cannot change the matter/form of a sacrament, since it's not his to change, but was created by Christ.  So, no, he cannot change Divine things, only human aspects of religion.

Arguably, Paul VI's missal is not even valid as a missal, because it changes the words of consecration, which are of Divine origin and not even the pope can do that.  It's also a historical fact that a previous council (I can't remember the name) codified the words of the consecration of the wine and said they must be "this..."  But, I'm not a liturgical theologian so I can't say that the new mass' consecration is invalid, only that it is doubtful, as Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci said, who were both theologians.  But this is besides the point...

If Paul VI was a true pope, then Quo Primum was abrogated when he published his new missal.  

Absolutely not.  His law does not say that Quo Primum is revoked, abrogated, changed, etc.  He mentions Quo Primum as a matter of historical fact.  Any legal docuмent worth the paper it's printed on must say it's revoking a previous law in order for it to revoke it.  You cannot revoke/abrogate/change a law indirectly, especially when the original law PROHIBITS the law trying to be enacted.

The constitution's 2nd amendment allows citizens to keep and bear arms.
Can congress change the Constitution?  Of course they have the power, in theory.  Have they changed it?  No.
Can congress pass laws which limit the 2nd amendment?  They can pass the law, but it's not valid because the Constitution overrules congress.
Can states enact laws which limit the 2nd amendment?  They can pass the law, but it's not valid because the Constitution overrules state law.