[Pax Vobis]

I bring up the 2nd amendment to compare a matter of law, which is what we're talking about, and which you clearly understand nothing about, and of its rules and requirements in order to be valid.

Paul VI, Missale Romanum
We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation.

Same argument as in V2.  "We wish that these Our decrees may be firm, etc, etc."  What decrees?  Where in the law did Paul VI say "I abrograte or change the law of quo primum..."  He did not and is REQUIRED TO DO SO.

Here is the example of legal language used by Pope St Pius V, when he enacted his law and revoked the previous liturgical missals:
(1) Authorizing the new missal
Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us;

(2) who does this law apply to?
this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever

(3) What are the specifics of use & Penalties?
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or possessed of any other rank or preeminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us,

(4) Revoking of previous missals
and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, howsoever ancient, which they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.   (new mass)

(5) How long is this law in effect?
Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity

(6) Permissions of this law?
that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.

Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us.  (new mass)

We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal  (new mass)

(7) Authority of this law?
and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi05qp.htm

[Pax Vobis]

Paul VI's Constitution:


(1) Authorizing the new missal
...there has grown and spread among the Christian people the liturgical renewal which, according to Pius XII, Our predecessor of venerable memory, seems to show the signs of God's providence in the present time, a salvific action of the Holy Spirit in His Church.(2) This renewal has also shown clearly that the formulas of the Roman Missal ought to be revised and enriched.

Comment:  The new missal is authorized based on the 'liturgical renewal' which was started under Pius XII.  So, not authorized by Papal Authority, but by the authority of a dead pope.  Ok.  Makes total sense (sarcasm alert).

The recent Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council, in promulgating the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, established the basis for the general revision of the Roman Missal:

Comment:  The new missal is not authorized by papal authority.  Instead, V2 established "the basis" (i.e. argument) why the missal needed updating.  Still not any kind of authority is named which creates this missal, but only "the basis" for it being V2.  So not authorized by papal authority in any way.

(2) who does this law apply to?
Not mentioned.

(3) What are the specifics of use & Penalties?
We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

Comment:  The only prescriptions are related to the new missal's contents and layout.  There are no rules governing its use.

(4) Revoking of previous missals
Not mentioned.

(5) How long is this law in effect?
Not mentioned.

(6) Permissions of this law?
Not mentioned.

(7) Authority of this law?
In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal.

Comment:  You can see that all that is authorized by Paul VI is a new missal.  His only reason for producing a new missal is because Pope Pius XII started a liturgical renewal and V2 gives a "basis" for why a new missal would be a good idea.  The new missal applies to no one, there is no allowance to use it, nor penalities for not using it.  The new law mentions nothing about Quo Primum being changed or replaced.

Over half of the entire docuмent explains the changes of the new missal, which Quo Primum didn't even address.  If you cut out the detailed summary of Paul's new missal, his law would be a few sentences long.



The Roman Missal, promulgated in 1570 by Our predecessor, St. Pius V, by decree of the Council of Trent,(1) has been received by all as one of the numerous and admirable fruits which the holy Council has spread throughout the entire Church of Christ. For four centuries, not only has it furnished the priests of the Latin Rite with the norms for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but also the saintly heralds of the Gospel have carried it almost to the entire world. Furthermore, innumerable holy men have abundantly nourished their piety towards God by its readings from Sacred Scripture or by its prayers, whose general arrangement goes back, in essence, to St. Gregory the Great.

(history lesson; no law present)

 Since that time there has grown and spread among the Christian people the liturgical renewal which, according to Pius XII, Our predecessor of venerable memory, seems to show the signs of God's providence in the present time, a salvific action of the Holy Spirit in His Church.(2) This renewal has also shown clearly that the formulas of the Roman Missal ought to be revised and enriched. The beginning of this renewal was the work of Our predecessor, this same Pius XII, in the restoration of the Paschal Vigil and of the Holy Week Rite,(3) which formed the first stage of updating the Roman Missal for the present-day mentality.

(reasons for the new missal; no law present)

 The recent Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council, in promulgating the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, established the basis for the general revision of the Roman Missal: in declaring "both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify";(4) in ordering that "the rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished";(5) in prescribing that "the treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's Word";(6) in ordering, finally, that "a new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and incorporated into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal."(7)

(reasons for the new missal from V2; no law present)

 One ought not to think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has been improvident. The progress that the liturgical sciences has accomplished in the last four centuries has, without a doubt, prepared the way. After the Council of Trent, the study "of ancient manuscripts of the Vatican library and of others gathered elsewhere," as Our predecessor, St. Pius V, indicates in the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, has greatly helped for the revision of the Roman Missal. Since then, however, more ancient liturgical sources have been discovered and published and at the same time liturgical formulas of the Oriental Church have become better known. Many wish that the riches, both doctrinal and spiritual, might not be hidden in the darkness of the libraries, but on the contrary might be brought into the light to illumine and nourish the spirits and souls of Christians.
 Let us show now, in broad lines, the new composition of the Roman Missal....

(more reasons for the new missal; no law present)

(here are the changes of the new missal, blah, blah, blah)

In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, "for legitimate variations and adaptations,"(15) we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. Thus, in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

(this law created a new missal, nothing else).

We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

(this constitution orders a new missal, that's it)

We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation.

(legal wording that is at the end of 99% legal docuмents.)

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

[Pax Vobis]

Where do you come up with this kind of stuff man?

It's basic legal knowledge.  I'm not a lawyer but i've read plenty of contracts as part of my job and i've also read many legal docuмents of the Church.  Legal formulas are legal formulas and they are consistent, for both financial and church law.

Where did you come up with the headings that you've attached to your post?  The (1) (2) (3), etc. crap?

Based on St Thomas' rules for a good and valid law. 

[Clemens Maria]

Meg, how could there have been "sedevacantists" at the false council?

The sede vacante argument didn't even come up until AFTER the false council and AFTER Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer started pointing out all of the errors.

Not to mention the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself questioned the legitimacy of Montini...
  

I believe there was a US priest who publicly declared his belief that J23 was a heretical usurper in 1962 or thereabouts.  Shuckardt went sv in 1967.  And if I’m not mistaken sv was an undercurrent of Archbishop Lefebvre’s group from the beginning in 1969-70.  The sv position predates the r&r position.  But the archbishop was an excellent organizer going back to his days as a missionary bishop.  So people got behind him without worrying too much about theological arguments.  When the sspx developed the r&r position over time the people attached to them went along with it.  And gradually the positions became more conflicting and antagonistic to the point that some people have become very emotionally attached to one argument or another.  I believe that if this crisis is resolved before the end of the world, it may very well be resolved without ever definitively resolving the question of the legitimacy of the various theological positions.  The crisis isn’t really about a particular response but about the papacy.  We all agree that the V2 popes are not Catholic.  So any resolution will have to deal with that.  But the resolution doesn’t necessarily have to condemn any particular response (r&r, sv, sp, sd, etc).  It could just side-step that question entirely.  If we got a Catholic pope with indubitably valid orders we probably aren’t going to worry too much about who took the correct position.

[Clemens Maria]

Do you include John XXIII on that list?

Yes, J23 suppressed the cult of St Philomena as well as rehabilitated the new theology heretics.  He approved the scrapping of Catholic schemas in favor of the heretical schemas of the new theology proponents.  He was known to be suspect of heresy by the Holy Office. And obviously something very nefarious happened at the 1958 conclave.

[Pax Vobis]

Excellent points, Clemons!  I agree, some of these points may never be cleared up or will be in the future, and we'll all be dead - so we'll hopefully be asking St Peter in heaven.  

In any case, let's all remember to have charity!  We agree on the important points, which is to safeguard the mass, sacraments and our families.  All else is theory, and no one made it to heaven on theory alone!

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas

In necessary things, unity.  In doubtful things, liberty.  In all things, charity.

[Cantarella]

Where do you come up with this kind of stuff man?  Where did you come up with the headings that you've attached to your post?  The (1) (2) (3), etc. crap?

I do have to admit that Pax Vobis possesses a rapid and great imagination!

[Cantarella]

Read slowly....


Clearly, if Montini was a true pope, Quo Primum was, without a doubt abrogated.  

Absolutely! There is no doubt about this. The clause is very explicit:  "Notwithstanding preceding Apostolic constitutions and ordinances… and whatever laws and customs there be to the contrary.".

Quo Primum does not bind any of the successors of St. Peter, for no pope has an authority higher than another pope. If Paul VI was true pope, then Quo Primum is abrogated. If Paul VI was indeed a legitimate successor of St. Peter, he was exercising his proper Papal authority over the Sacred Liturgy when introducing and approving the new rite, or "modifying those he judged to require modification" as Pope Pius XII stated in Mediator Dei.

[Cantarella]

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.

The Council of Trent, Canon 7 on the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" teaches that:

"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema"

These are bad news to those who reject the NOM altogether as an evil sinful rite while at the same time recognizing the legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff who promulgated it. The only way to get around this canon is to say that the Catholic Church did NOT promulgate this new rite nor does it use it, meaning that Paul VI was not a real pope. No one who acknowledges the legitimacy of the conciliar popes can hold this position without being guilty of holding a position which refutes itself.

[Ladislaus]

Yes, J23 suppressed the cult of St Philomena as well as rehabilitated the new theology heretics.  He approved the scrapping of Catholic schemas in favor of the heretical schemas of the new theology proponents.  He was known to be suspect of heresy by the Holy Office. And obviously something very nefarious happened at the 1958 conclave.

Heck, there's very credible evidence that Roncalli was inducted into a Masonic lodge; he was always fraternizing with Communists.  Masonic newspapers around the world hailed the "election" of Roncalli.

In several letters, including his first encyclical, Roncali referred to the Holy Trinity as a "Mysterious Force" ... which is a known Masonic term (look it up).

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/anti-pope-john-xxiii/#.Wl9bpqinGUk

[Ladislaus]

The Council of Trent, Canon 7 on the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" teaches that:

These are bad news to those who reject the NOM altogether as an evil sinful rite while at the same time recognizing the legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff who promulgated it. The only way to get around this canon is to say that the Catholic Church did NOT promulgate this new rite nor does it use it, meaning that Paul VI was not a real pope. No one who acknowledges the legitimacy of the conciliar popes can hold this position without being guilty of holding a position which refutes itself.

Yes, and notice this does not say "the rites that the Church has made obligatory", but rather "the rites that the Church USES".

[Clemens Maria]

So the fifty other Cardinals who "elected" Roncalli were all or at least two-thirds were evil Masonic/Modernist agents?

Are you asking yourself?

Yeah, I don't understand why he's wondering about the Cardinals.  Fraud/coercion would invalidate the election regardless of whatever position the Cardinals took.  And even if the election was valid cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio http://www.sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cuмex.html would be a justification for withdrawing fidelity and obedience from such a manifestly heretical and non-Catholic claimant of the papacy.

[Pax Vobis]

If Paul VI was true pope, then Quo Primum is abrogated.

I'm glad none of you is a court-appointed attorney because your client would be screwed.  You have no idea what you're talking about.  For a law to be repealed/abrogated, the new law must say it is repealing/abrogating the old law.  For a law to revised/edited, the new law must say it is revising/editing the old law, and tell how.  Paul VI's law doesn't even attempt to do either of these actions.  Anyone, with a legal background or not, can read the text and see that this is so.  I've lost a lot of respect for many of you.  You are being close-minded.

Here are some examples of legal language which was used to revise/revoke/abrogate missals.  Since the time of Pope St Pius V in the late 1500s, there have been 6-7 revisions and all of them, since they are revisions, are still technically and essentially the missal legalized by Quo Primum, since their changes were minor, but were only revised to include new calendars of saints or other updates necessary with the passage of time.

July 7, 1604 - 'cuм Sanctissimum' - Pope Clement VIII - On the revision of the roman missal
Reason for the revision:
in the course of time, it has come to pass that, through the rashness and boldness of the printers, or of others, many errors have crept into the missals which have been produced in recent years.

Legal language of revision:
We have ordered in the first place that the above mentioned printed Missals, so corrupted, be banned and declared null and void and that their use be disallowed in the celebration of the Mass, unless they be entirely and in everything emended according to the original text published under Pius V....And we forbid and prohibit in perpetuity for all places and peoples under the same penalties the use of such Missals as might be printed and sold without the necessary permission.  

Legal language revoking previous missals:
Notwithstanding whatsoever licenses, indults and privileges hitherto granted by Us or by the Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, to print the aforenamed Missal of Pius V, which by these presents We expressly revoke and which We wish to be revoked


Sept 2, 1634 - 'Si Quid Est' - Pope Urban VIII - On the revision of the roman missal
- Similar language used

Nov 1, 1911 - 'Divino Afflatu' - Pope St Pius X - Divine Inspiration
- Similar language used

Mar 23, 1955 - 'cuм hac Nostra Aetate' - Pope Pius XII - With this Modern Age
When all this was referred to His Holiness by His Eminence the Cardinal Prefect of the S.C. of Rites, His Holiness deigned to approve the following arrangement of the Rubrics and ordered that it be published, with the understanding that the provisions of this decree are to go into effect on the first of January, 1956.

1. The ordinances which follow concern the Roman rite. Whatever is not mentioned here is unchanged.
2. The term calendar applies both to the calendar in use in the universal church and to particular calendars.
3. The rules which follow are to be observed in both the private and public recitation of the Divine Office, unless there is express provision to the contrary.
4. All particular indults and customs, even those worthy of special mention, if contrary to these ordinances, are to be considered as expressly revoked.

Comment: Pius XII's law takes a different form than the others, but still, the required legal wording is present, which is "are revoked", and this refers to Pius V's missal, which is referenced earlier in the docuмent.

July 5, 1960 - ''Rubricarum Instructum" - Pope John XXIII
We ourselves, therefore, of our own accord [motu proprio] and with full knowledge, have seen fit to approve by our apostolic authority ...And we decree as follows:

1. We command that, beginning on the first day of January of next year, 1961, all those who follow the Roman rite shall observe the new code of rubrics of the Roman breviary and missal...
As for those who observe some other Latin rite, they are bound to conform as soon as possible both to the new code of rubrics and to the calendar, in all those things which are not strictly proper to their own rite.

2. On the same day, January 1, 1961, the "General Rubrics" of the Roman breviary and missal, as well as the "Additions and Variations" to the rubrics of the Roman breviary and missal according to the bull Divino afflatu of our predecessor St. Pius X, which have hitherto been prefixed to these books, shall become inoperative.

As the provisions of the decree, The Reduction of the Rubrics to a Simpler Form , dated March 23, 1955 (Pius XII's revisions), have been incorporated into this new edition of the rubrics, this general decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites shall likewise become inoperative.  Finally, any decrees and replies on doubtful points issued by the same Congregation (referring to Pius XII's revisions) which do not agree with this new form of rubrics shall be abrogated.

3. Likewise, statues, privileges, indults, and customs of any kind whatsoever, including those that are centenary and immemorial, even if they are worthy of special and individual mention, shall be revoked if they are opposed to these rubrics.


Comment: Pope John XXIII's revisions took the place of both Pius XII's and Pius X's revisions, since Pius XII changed the Easter liturgy and Pius X was mainly concerned with updating the breviary.  The point is, when a revision is made, the Pope John XXIII REFERENCED THE OLD LAW.  He also STATED THAT THE OLD LAW IS BEING REVOKED, ABROGATED, INOPERATIVE, or some other similar word.

Paul VI issued a new missal; he DID NOT revoke, abrogate, derogate, make inoperative or replace Pope John XXIII's missal for the simple reason that he never used these words, or any of similar meaning in reference to a previous missal.  And Pope Benedict confirmed this in 2007.

[Ladislaus]

Sorry, Pax, but the Church's indefectibility is not a function of legal technicalities.  If a Pope promulgated this Missal and promoted it for use by the Church, then it's infallibly valid and non-harmful to faith.

[Ladislaus]

Montini's abrogation of Quo Primum is clear as day, you just refuse to see it.  

Yep.

Montini used the same language Quo Primum did:

...notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances of Our Predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those worthy of special mention and amendment.

Pax likes to fantasize that Montini merely permitted the New Missal:

• The General Instruction preceding the New Order of Mass “imposes new rules for celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice.”
• “We have decreed that three new Canons be added to this Prayer [the Roman Canon].”
• “We have ordered that the words of the Lord be one and the same formula in each Canon.”
• “And so, it is Our will that these words be thus said in every Eucharistic Prayer.”
• “All of which things we have prescribed by this, Our Constitution, shall begin to take effect from 30 November of this year.” 
• “It is Our will that these laws and prescriptions be, and they shall be, firm and effective now and in the future.”

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.

Any Universal Discipline thus promulgated by a legitimate Pope must certainly be valid and cannot be harmful to faith.