Yes, we owe submission and obedience to the pope. "We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, UNLESS he should command something which is sinful." - "Who Shall Ascend?" This is apparently all but impossible for sedes to comprehend, let alone accept, because they must believe that popes are incapable of doing what the conciliar popes have done. What other reason could there be?

"...Catholics must be convinced of the following most important principle, a principle which has a special relevance in the context of this present writing. It is this: No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin. The notion is abroad that one may always simply follow the pope and the bishops and thus be sure of salvation. Ordinarily this is a reliable norm. However, it is so only because ordinarily the pope and the bishops are more zealous for and more perfectly instructed in the Faith than their subjects.

Neither can anyone get permission to sin through the erroneous teaching of the pope or any of his other spiritual superiors, nor through their failure to teach what they ought. Everyone is bound to keep God's law and the Faith. The obligation to do that which is good and avoid that which is evil and to believe the truths of Catholicism does not arise from the hierarchy of the Church, nor from the Papacy, but from the intrinsic nature of things and the commands of Christ, Who is Lord of all." - Fr. Wathen, "The Great Sacrilege"

If one can declare that John Paul II isn't a real saint, that the Church has got it wrong, and that they must declare John Paul II to not be a saint as it would be sinful to not do so... - then one could do the exact same for St. Thomas. You're giving every Catholic a carte blanche to reject anything the Church does as long as they have the personal opinion that it would be sinful to do otherwise. Was it a reasonable position for a man in the 1500s to declare that the Tridentine rite was uncatholic and refuse to attend it? 

You should read Quo Primum, because what you are saying, is that Trent anathematized whoever says the ceremonies etc., are incentives to impiety, of a "mass" Trent anathematized. I will quote you the pertinent parts if you wish, but better for you to read it.

You're saying Quo Primum anathemised the NOM? Well I've read it before but I'm not sure what you're referring to. I assume you mean this:

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

Which does not refer to the popes at all, as many popes altered the Tridentine rite after Trent. Rather it refers to the lesser clergy changing the rite themselves.

Not sure how anyone could miss it.......

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 new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases.....

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, 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.... Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us...



Quo Primum allowed for insignificant alterations (to the rite and manner of the Mass) by popes. Quo Primum decreed to "chant or read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us", not that popes could not make incidental revisions when necessary.

Except nowhere does it say "Nothing SIGNIFICANT may be added, omitted or changed" rather it just says that NOTHING may be added, omitted or change. So if that order applied to popes, then all the alterations made to the right thereafter would have been illegal. You're making up a distinction that is simply not in the text to try and justify your erroneous interpretation. Quo Primum did not intend to ban future popes from ever altering the rite or promulgating new ones, and it could not. Popes cannot limit the authority of future popes. 

Trent specifically anathemises anyone who would call a mass or ceremony of the Church, or the vestments used therein, unholy, impious, or blasphemous.

This is a clearcut teaching regarding the infallibility of the Church's Liturgical discipline.  To say that the Mass promulgated by the Church is harmful to souls is a grave error and at least proximate to heresy.  Even Bishop Williamson acknowledged this in principle when he dealt with the matter.

How did he get around it?  Well, his answer (and the most common R&R answer) is that the New Mass wasn't actually "promulgated" by the Church.  I don't find that the least bit persuasive.  Father Cekada did an excellent job debunking it.  Plus, it's all about legal technicalities.  But the principle is that the Church cannot produce and promote for Universal usage a Rite of Mass that harms souls.  Period.

Now, an older way to get out of it was to say that since it's only the Latin Rite, it's not "Universal" ... but that has been debunked and most R&R have dropped that argument.

How did he get around it?  Well, his answer (and the most common R&R answer) is that the New Mass wasn't actually "promulgated" by the Church.  I don't find that the least bit persuasive.  Father Cekada did an excellent job debunking it.  Plus, it's all about legal technicalities.  But the principle is that the Church cannot produce and promote for Universal usage a Rite of Mass that harms souls.  Period.

Ah yes, the old "the pope accidentally only promulgated it for the 'Conciliar Church' which he doesn't even believe exists, despite explicitly saying he was promulgating it for the Catholic Church'. I wonder if Martin Luther had thought of saying Exsurge Domini was somehow only issued on behalf of the Pope Leo X Fan Club and not actually the Catholic Church, despite the docuмent saying otherwise, would we still have Lutherans today insisting that *they're* the real Catholics and telling us we're misrepresenting papal infallibility if we suggest that it's impossible for the entire Church to teach falsely and use invalid masses for 500 years.

Sorry forlorn, but Pope Pius V banned new rites when he said: "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".

You let him know that he didn't ban new rites when you meet him in eternity, then duck.

 Aside from the Roman Rite, the only other rites he permitted were the ones that were already the custom for at least 200 years prior to his law., the NO does not meet any of his criteria as such, Trent condemned it in plenty of time before it came to be.

"This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom...."

You really should read Quo Primum.

Once again, those orders apply to the lesser clergy, not the popes. If they applied to the popes then every change made to the Tridentine rite post Quo Primum, and there were plenty, would have been illegal and invalid. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this. 

Can you quote any authority stating Missale Romanum was illegal on the grounds that popes can no longer promulgate rites? 

Once again, those orders apply to the lesser clergy, not the popes. If they applied to the popes then every change made to the Tridentine rite post Quo Primum, and there were plenty, would have been illegal and invalid. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this.

Can you quote any authority stating Missale Romanum was illegal on the grounds that popes can no longer promulgate rites?

In your zeal to go by the letter of the law, you are missing the spirit of the law, which is Catholic. Incidental changes that the popes made after QP, did not change the norm laid down by PPV. The "chant, or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us" wholly remained after they made their changes, all the incidental changes were, were exactly that, incidental changes, the Rite of Mass remained unchanged.

I will use your logic and ask, If PPV did not intend to bind even future popes, then why did he not say that he did not intend to bind future popes?


I think that maybe Fr. Hesse is a bit more explicit in that he is certain that QP binds all future popes, but this interview may be of interest to you....

A few Snips from an interview with Fr. Wathen on this subject, not sure of the date, but it was some time after 1984. The one asking the questions was one of the Dimond Brothers in their pre-sede days, Peter I think.....


Question: As far as there are three main parts of the Mass, am I right? There’s the liceity, the morality and the validity. Would you explain each of these and give a little explanation of each of these in their different areas.

Fr.When you use the word liceity you’re referring to the question of whether the new mass is legal.
When you speak of validity, you are discussing whether the consecration of the mass is valid and true, whether there is truly transubstantiation.

When you discuss the matter of morality, you are questioning whether it’s a sin either to offer the new mass or to attend it.

I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it.


Question: You believe it’s actually a sin, a mortal sin to use the new mass, is that not right?

Fr.That’s right. We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it - and we think that to violate the law with regard to the True Mass there is a moral violation, we believe that is a grievous violation, and therefore a sacrilegious violation of the True Mass. It is most important for people, when considering the new mass, always to bear in mind that the Traditional Latin Mass, which is to be found in the Missale Romanum of Pope Pius V, that, that is the standard whereby they judge any other Rite in the Roman Rite.


Question: But the people say that the people make the contention that pope Paul VI had the right so therefore we must accept it.

Fr.That of course is a central question. We deny that he had such a right. That exactly is the point. We have every reason to question whether the pope had the authority to introduce a brand new mass, introduce a new Rite of the liturgy of the Western Church. We believe that when one reads Quo Primum of St. Pius V, he can see clearly that it is altogether forbidden for his successors, any of his successors to go contrary to this law.

Here is a key question, whether a successor can override pope Pius V with regard to the establishment of the Rite of the Mass. It’s a key question.

It was never considered that the pope could go contrary to this ruling because Quo Primum was issued to protect the Mass. It was as strong of legislation as the pope could possibly impose. If we say that his successor is not bound by this legislation, we have to say that the Church has no way of protecting it’s own liturgy. There is no doctrine that says that a pope cannot make a mistake, there’s no such doctrine.


Question: He allowed for incidental and minor changes to be made, but obviously he could probably never imagine….

Fr.That goes without saying, incidental changes could be made. Quo Primum states that only the pope could make such changes. The idea that anyone including the pope, could make a substantive change in the Mass, is so obvious that it is not stated.


Question: The Council of Trent Canon 6 says “if anyone says the Mass contains errors, therefore should be abrogated let them be anathema”. Would something like that hold any weight pertaining to what pope Paul VI did? In a way he was saying that it did contain errors therefore should be abrogated did he not?

Fr.I would not say that his changing the Rite of the Mass was a suggestion that there was fault in the old Mass, that canon simply states that the doctrine expressed by the prayers and the ritual of the traditional Mass are thoroughly Catholic, that everyone may have confidence that there is no doctrinal error expressed by this Rite. The matter of the new mass must be considered first of all why the new mass was introduced. Was it introduced because it was suggested there was some deficiency in the old mass, was it introduced for less cogent reasons? It was never suggested that there was some deficiency, it was suggested that there was room for improvement.  
……no sufficient reason was ever given, and no one has a sufficient reason. The only reason they have is that one pope may override the rules and the laws of another. This is an error.


Question: Now people will say Father, that it could be changed because this is simply a matter of discipline, that the pope could change it because it’s not a matter of strictly faith and morals he could not make an ex cathedra statement to define the Mass, therefore the pope has the justification to establish a new rite – that’s what people are saying and that’s why your wrong father.

Fr. People have been given the idea that whatever the pope has the authority to do he may morally do, we deny both that the pope has the authority to introduce a new mass and we insist that the introduction of a totally new Rite with a questionable theology, and that is putting it mildly, the introduction of a new Rite with a questionable theology is not only unlawful, that is, it goes clearly contrary to the established law, but it is immoral, independent of the law of which the pope is bound.

People have the idea that the pope, because he is the head of the Church, has limitless authority. This is altogether wrong. He is not at all limitless in what he may do, he is strictly bound to what he must do and he is bound to adhere to what has been established. The role and the duty of the pope not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don’t deviate from it....