I agree with the answer, but in this case, PPV used his supreme authority to bind the Church forever. If you can figure out how that is possible without also binding all of his successors please do tell.

It's been splained to you numerous times.  You've yet to explain how he also bound the Church forever regarding the Breviary and yet St. Pius X saw fit to change it.  You ignorantly claimed that the Breviary was not the Church's Liturgy.

There are no changes in the consecration prayers of the 1969 typical edition of the Roman Missal that cannot be found in the consecration prayers of other valid liturgical Rites.

Totally irrelevant and wrong.  Each rite must be viewed independently.  Pius XII CLEARLY defined the consecration formula for the Latin rite and Paul6 went directly against it (without revoking Pius XII's rule, or changing it).  Neither did Paul6 argue that the validity was based on eastern rites.  He made no argument; He just changed the consecration....which, is maybe the ONLY thing that we know is of Divine origin.


Paul6 made it clear (to Trads) from the get-go, that his new mass was wrong, invalid, non-Traditional, illegal, etc.  Thanks be to God!

If you're going to make the argument that this part of the Latin rite is similar to the Byzantine rite, etc, then you might as well do away with the rites altogether.  They are substantially the same, but are different in details.  Their differences are due to culture, preference, etc.  But once a pope codifies a rite, you can't argue his codification is meaningless.  That usurps the power of the papacy and the purpose of the rites themselves. 

The problem with the New Mass is its archaeologism and its novel, lab-created orations that are either substanial edits of older prayers or prayers of entirely new composition. Add to this a new calendar and a novel 3-year/2-year lectionary cycle and what one has is a Frankenstein liturgy.

No, it goes quite beyond this.

The Pius X Office retains the structure of Hymns, Pslalter, Chapter, Responsory for the hours, but the arrangement of Psalms is wholly different.

That's fine.  But is the pre-Pius X Office substantially different from the Pius X changes?  No.

That's fine.  But is the pre-Pius X Office substantially different from the Pius X changes?  No.

We must have different understandings of what constitutes "substantial".

We must have different understandings of what constitutes "substantial".

The complete Rosary is 15 decades.  The shortened version is 5 decades.  Does the shortened version change the substance of the IDEA/purpose of the Rosary?  No.


Does St Pius X's Breviary change the IDEA/purpose of St Pius V's longer version?  No.

It is a matter of comparing in order to establish what is universally common and thereby discern what is needed for validity.

No.  If the pope has ALREADY established what is needed (and much more, what is required) for validity, for a particular rite, then to deviate from this, makes it positively doubtful (at best) or outright invalid (at worst).


If the pope makes a statement, it's not meant for theologians to come along later, and "establish what is valid".  The pope spoke, so his ruling is absolute.

I have a doctorate in liturgy--the Tridentine liturgy. What you say is not how the Catholic Church has ever conducted the sacred science of liturgiology since the discipline emerged in theology during the 16th century.

Not to derail the thread, but is it still possible to receive a degree in the Tridentine liturgy, or really any non-Novus Ordo traditional catholic degree?

The Canon is the anaphora, or eucharistic prayer, for the Roman Rite and its various usages as well the name for the anaphora in other Western Rites (Gallican, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bragan, and Glogolitic Rites). The Canon begins remotely with the Preface Dialogue and Preface,  proximately with the Sanctus, and properly with the Te Igitur. Most of the Canon is a fixed narrative said almost entirely sotto voce (the pre-62 Mass has 3 levels of voice, whilst the 62 Mass has only 2 levels). The Roman Canon is the most common form of the anaphora for the Roman Rite. There are (or have been) variations in the text for local usages. And there are proper Communicantes and Hanc igitur for certain holy days. The number of Prefaces have varied in time, being generally fixed with the Missal of Pius V, although additional Prefaces squeezed their way into the back of 19th- and early 20th-century printings, but never into the typical editions. The Canon concludes with the Per ipsum, which was once sung aloud (a practice revived with the 65 Missal), but has been properly offered quietly with the rest of the Canon for several recent centuries. The Canon itself probably once had a different ordering of the prayers,  but whatever that may have been is lost in the very earliest centuries of the Roman Church. What we have in ordering of prayers and saints mentioned obtains at least to the 4th century with final "tweaks" ending by the 7th century.