Stubborn - of course Pius V bound the Roman Church to follow his law during his reign, and had the supreme jurisdiction to do so. He was responsible for the government of the Church during his reign in the 16th century, and he did what he thought should be done with his authority. His authority didn't reach to, or bind, what Pius X did and thought best for the Church liturgically or in its office of prayer in the early 20th century.

What is the problem here?

The problem is, it is because by him binding the whole Roman Church to that liturgy forever, that [by extension] popes are bound.

How can he bind the Church forever and not also bind popes?
How could he bind the Roman Church to that liturgy forever, if any of his successors can discard that liturgy? - which would mean he did not know that he did not have the authority to bind the Roman Church to that liturgy.   

What you are saying is that Quo Primum either does not mean what it says, or you're saying that or the law he established expired with his reign.

See what I'm saying?

Fr. Cekada addressed the Quo Primum argument in one of his blog posts:

In the 1960s faithful Catholics seized upon this language as a justification for disobeying the new liturgical legislation while simultaneously recognizing Paul VI as a true pope. This was unfortunate, because anyone who knows a bit about canon law can refute the argument very easily.

Here again, Fr. Cekada falls back on the only thing he can - Quo Primum does not mean what it says. That Pope St. Pius V worded Quo Primum to only sound like it invoked the full force of papal authority. This deserves a great big .

Yes, I think it's a mechanism used by R&R mostly to justify rejecting the changes made by Montini given that they're unwilling to even consider the possibility of SV.

SV has nothing to do with it - it only has everything to do with it to sedes.

PPV established the law of Quo Primum. He bound the whole Roman Church to that law forever. Popes are part of the Church, heck, popes ARE the Church to sedes, regardless, ergo, popes are bound to this law.

Why on earth would anyone want to claim PPV did not mean exactly what he said? To keep PPVI from being a pope? Extremely dumb reason.

 

We can't fully use human logic to describe the papacy because it is a spiritual mystery.  And popes are not simply kings, but also representative of Christ.  Thus, in certain areas, popes can "bind" future popes, because when the pope acts according to the Holy Ghost, then God is making a decision.  Since God does not change, then certain decisions cannot be changed in the future.  God cannot deceive, nor contradict Himself, so certain papal actions are fixed, forever, because to change it in the future would admit God can err.

Well, St. Pius X disagrees with you, since St. Pius V used the same language about the Breviary, and St. Pius X didn't consider himself bound by that.  Canon Lawyers disagree with you.

And who decides when a Pope is acting "according to the Holy Ghost", you?

Pope St. Pius X was bound to that Liturgy - because his authority was limited.

You're claiming Pope St. Pius V did not have the authority to bind the whole Roman Church forever. Which is contrary to Quo Primum.

St. Pius X disagrees with you since he changed the Breviary, and as has been pointed out, but is being filtered out by your brain due to cognitive dissonance, St. Pius V used the same language to bind the Breviary "forever" also.

The Breviary is not the Roman Liturgy. Not even close. You are faced with another conundrum when it comes to the Liturgy - best for you to ignore it, as usual.

So what?  You're basing your argument on Quo Primum and arguing that a Pope can bind another Pope when he uses terms like "forever".

I'll throw your own comments back at you, where you said:

What you are saying is that Quo Primum either does not mean what it says, or you're saying that or the law he established expired with his reign.

So, when St. Pius V said the same thing in Quod a nobis, either he "does not mean what it says, or you're saying that the law he established expired with his reign".

Of course, no one says it expired with his reign, but rather that it expired when another Pope came along and issued new directives.

You're making bogus distinctions now between Liturgy and Breviary because you're determined to continue living in your perpetual state of self-contradiction.  Besides, the Breviary is Church Liturgy, and the distinction you're after is between the Mass and other Liturgy.

The Breviary was not substantially changed, only the details were, so Pius X did not deviate from Pius V.  And Pius V did not deviate from his predecessors.  

It’s a false battle to pit Tradition vs Papal Authority because they are not enemies.  Quo Primum simply codified the mass as being part of Tradition, as St Pius V says that the essence of the rite goes all the way back to the early church and Pope St Gregory the Great.  

No Pope can substantially change the canon.  Does St Joseph’s addition substantially change the canon?  No.  But does it harm the idea of Tradition?  Yes.  Is such a harm allowable?  Probably, because it’s minor.  Is it a prudential act?  I’m sure, not. 

Could a pope get rid of the entire Communicantes prayer?  I’m not sure.  

What I do know is that any revision to the liturgy would have to abrogate or revise Quo Primum, and that didn’t happen.  So the addition of St Joseph isn’t a fully legal change.  

So what?  You're basing your argument on Quo Primum and arguing that a Pope can bind another Pope when he uses terms like "forever".

You have a major reading comprehension problem. I said: "What you are saying is that Quo Primum either does not mean what it says" which includes the words: "in perpetuity" and "forever." Do you know what those words mean?

So, when St. Pius V said the same thing in Quod a nobis, either he "does not mean what it says, or you're saying that the law he established expired with his reign".

Of course, no one says it expired with his reign, but rather that it expired when another Pope came along and issued new directives.

You're making bogus distinctions now between Liturgy and Breviary because you're determined to continue living in your perpetual state of self-contradiction.  Besides, the Breviary is Church Liturgy, and the distinction you're after is between the Mass and other Liturgy.

Go ahead and post Pope St. Pius V's Papal Bull Quod a nobis, until you post it, there is no sense in referencing it because nobody knows what it says or what's in it - nor does it matter to anyone except those who think he had no intention of binding the Roman Church to the Roman Liturgy. May as well forget Quo Primum even exists - along with the Roman Missal of Pope Pius V while you're at it!

But we do know what Quo Primum says about the Roman Liturgy. It is quite clear that the law of QP states only the Roman Missal is to be the only missal used for the Roman Liturgy "in perpetuity," and that the law of Quo Primum remains "valid henceforth now and forever." 

Now you and Fr. Cekada want to claim it does not really mean what it says so unmistakably clearly, and then say "that's just the way they spoke back then." Booooo! Ppffffffft!