Canon 7 was indeed speaking of the Mass, the True Mass - not the Novus Ordo travesty, which indeed is the Great Sacrilege. They may call that thing "the mass" but that thing is NOT the Mass - and certainly it is not the Mass Trent is talking about. The new "mass" was not even invented till 400 years after this canon. That thing is not the mass anymore than the conciliar church is Catholic.  

Those who think the new mass' ceremonies and outward signs are *not* at least incentives to impiety, do not know what incentives to impiety even means and they need to do much more growing in the Catholic faith.

The popes' status has absolutely zero to do with the new "mass" and vise versa.  

"Why is that so" you ask? Very simply, it is because, as Cantarella often posted in her pre-sedeism days, the editor of Denzinger, the person who can change, add, or not add whatever he chooses, was the ultra modernist, Mr. Anonymous Christian theologian himself, Fr. Karl Rahner S.J.. Hopefully, no further explanation is necessary.

The Mass of Quo Primum *is* the same Mass Trent mentions in Canon 7. All Pope St. Pius V did was canonize *that* Mass of Canon 7, that is, he fixed it, he made it a law, the law of Quo Primum, that the Mass of Canon 7 is permanently irrevocable. Pope St. Pius V did not concoct his own new mass, he solidified forever the celebration of the same Mass of Canon 7.  

And again, the popes' status has absolutely zero to do with the new "mass". The True Mass' replacement, the "Novus Ordo Missae" is itself at least, per Quo Primum, illegal. Pope Paul VI was indeed bound by Quo Primum same as all popes, whether they choose to ignore this law or not has no bearing on their status as the pope.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. Canon 7 is speaking of the various kinds of Catholic Masses that were being celebrated at that time. There was more than just the one Mass (i.e.The Mass of Quo Primum) being celebrated as Pope St. Pius V stated himself in Quo Primum. In fact, Pope St. Pius V permitted such Catholic Masses to continue to be celebrated if they were over 200 years old! So when you say Canon 7 is speaking only of the One True Mass, you are sadly mistaken.

Also, not surprisingly, you blame Karl Rahner for not including Quo Primum in the 30th Edition of Denzinger, yet it has never been found in any version of Denzinger, before or since. Also, when the 30th edition of Denzinger refers to Pope Liberius as "St. Liberius" (as shown in Denzinger right after 57e, while praise is further given to him in Denzinger 88 and 93), I suppose this so-called error is also a deliberate error on Karl Rahner's part to further confuse us Traditional Roman Catholics....
And finally, the popes' status (specifically Pope Paul VI) has much to do with the new "mass" because it is, after all, the mass that he created and it's also the mass celebrated by every pope since 1969...whether you like it or hate it....it's the truth. Also, it is the popes who have the supreme authority alone to change anything in a liturgy...yes, even if it means creating a new liturgy....like it or hate it...it's the truth.

You probably also believe the common fallacy (often spread among SSPX faithful) that Vatican II was merely a "pastoral" council and not a "dogmatic" council. Well, sorry to burst your bubble again, Vatican II was a dogmatic council. 2 of the 16 docuмents of Vatican II are actually "Dogmatic Constitutions." Lumen Gentium is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and Dei Verbum is the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Even if you utterly despise Vatican II, you cannot deny that Vatican II was a dogmatic council (i.e. you cannot say that no doctrine was pronounced) because these 2 docuмents prove otherwise. If you choose to disobey these Dogmatic Constitutions, then fine. Just realize that you are disobeying Catholic Dogma.

You probably also believe the other common fallacy (again often spread among the SSPX faithful) that both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI said that Vatican II was a "pastoral council." I'm sorry, but all you have to do is actually read what they said and you will discover that you have been lied to.

Pope John XXIII in this opening speech to the Second Vatican Council, October 11, 1962 stated the following: "May the light of thy supernal grace aid us in taking decisions and in making laws."

Pope Paul VI said the following, in his closing speech to the Second Vatican Council "In Spiritu Sancto" of December 8, 1965: "We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful...We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect." 

Again, if you choose not to obey the doctrines of Vatican II, then fine. However, you shouldn't continue to lie to yourself in order to feel better for not following said doctrines. I used to believe all of the lies that you believe.

1 - Wrong.  This canon applies to those at whom it was addressed or directed.  It was addressed and directed at protestants.  It was not addressed or directed at future traditional catholics keeping with the spirit of the canons author regarding liturgical orthodoxy in a time of papal contradiction.  It is that simple.

Nonsense.  It doesn't say, "If any Protestant ...".  Yours is a Modernist/relativistic explanation of this Canon.  Modernists do this with every Church teaching, claim that it's got to be put into its historical context to be understood (as not saying what it actually does say).  This is nothing other than a statement of the Church's disciplinary infallibility.  It's THAT simple.  You hem and haw for 4 paragraphs trying to explain away the implications of this Canon.  Now +Williamson grants the Church's disciplinary infallibility, since it's taught by every Catholic theologian; he merely holds that the Church had not sufficiently promulgated the NOM to make it fall under the umbrella of disciplinary infallibility.  I don't agree.  This Canon in particular suggests otherwise, since it talks about a Mass that the Church "uses" (not has made mandatory to the exclusion of all others).

This is the same tactic Modernists use to explain away previous condemnations of Religious Liberty for instance.  "We must understand the historical context and realize that this only applies to the specific circuмstances of those the Pope had in mind with the condemnation."  As soon as you hear people talking about the "historical context" of a doctrinal statement, that should raise alarm bells against Modernist interpretation.

I'm sorry but one cannot merely "forget about the 200 year exemption" because that is a very important part of understanding Quo Primum. Quo Primum includes the following:

#4 - "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 the 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." 

This paragraph proves that in the year 1562 (when Canon 7 was promulgated) as well as in the year 1570 (when Quo Primum was issued, a mere 8 years later), there was more than one "practice of saying Mass." In other words, there were Roman Catholic priests and bishops who were using various liturgical missals and that is why Quo Primum states in paragraph #4 that all of those said priests and bishops who said a Roman Catholic Mass using a liturgical missal that was more than 200 years old were not obliged to use this codified version of the Roman Missal. 

Therefore, Quo Primum is not a Church Law (or Dogma) because dogmas bind the entire church while Quo Primum contains exceptions among the Catholic faithful in its application. That is why it has never been in "The Sources of Catholic Dogma," or any other book on Church Doctrine. It was merely a disciplinary docuмent and not a dogmatic one since it did not apply to every Catholic priest or bishop. 

The fact that "Quo Primum was written in the front of every single solitary Roman Catholic Altar Missal for 400 years prior to the NOM" is irrelevant. Who is denying that? Quo Primum rightly was written in said Missals to state that every Missal celebrating that particular Mass was obligated to use this codified version of the Roman Missal. There's nothing wrong with that but to believe that Quo Primum applied to the entire Roman Catholic Church is merely a lie. I've heard that lie from the late Fr. Hesse and other adherents to the SSPX (who also spread the lies that Vatican II was merely a pastoral council and that Popes John XXIII and Paul VI claimed that it was also merely pastoral). 

Now, concerning the following 1562 Canon:

CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

Even though the Council would not conclude until the following year and it would be 8 years until Quo Primum would be issued, the Council in this specific canon is acknowledging that there are other masses that are celebrated within the Catholic Church. The celebration of M-A-S-S-E-S....Plural. Not "M-A-S-S" (singular) or "The Mass." It's very important to acknowledge this distinction. 

However, since you probably already believe the lies that Vatican II was a "pastoral" and not a "dogmatic" council and that Quo Primum is a dogmatic docuмent binding the entire Church, then it is no surprise that you also believe the lie that Canon 7 above is merely referring to the Latin Mass. 

Unfortunately, since you most likely believe all of these lies, it is no surprise that people like you, the SSPX, the SSPX Resistance, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, and the Fatima Center have for years constantly spoken badly about popes you allegedly claim to recognize as the "Vicar of Christ." This is hypocrisy plain and simple.

How can people like you recognize popes yet always trash-talk them and, even worse, make a living out of constantly criticizing them (e.g. The Remnant, Catholic Family News, The Fatima Crusader, etc.)???

What kind of a Roman Catholic would constantly trash-talk and severely criticize pope after pope after pope since either 1958 or 1963, yet still claim to accept him as the "Vicar of Christ?" IMO, only a dishonest one. 

Why don't all of you just come out and say what you really think about the post-Vatican II popes and this "new church" and this "new religion?" (i.e. that you really do not recognize them at all)

At least the sedevacantists are honest about who they are. Don't you think that it is time that you should be too?

Nonsense.  It doesn't say, "If any Protestant ...".  Yours is a Modernist/relativistic explanation of this Canon.  Modernists do this with every Church teaching, claim that it's got to be put into its historical context to be understood (as not saying what it actually does say).  This is nothing other than a statement of the Church's disciplinary infallibility.  It's THAT simple.  You hem and haw for 4 paragraphs trying to explain away the implications of this Canon.  Now +Williamson grants the Church's disciplinary infallibility, since it's taught by every Catholic theologian; he merely holds that the Church had not sufficiently promulgated the NOM to make it fall under the umbrella of disciplinary infallibility.  I don't agree.  This Canon in particular suggests otherwise, since it talks about a Mass that the Church "uses" (not has made mandatory to the exclusion of all others).

This is the same tactic Modernists use to explain away previous condemnations of Religious Liberty for instance.  "We must understand the historical context and realize that this only applies to the specific circuмstances of those the Pope had in mind with the condemnation."  As soon as you hear people talking about the "historical context" of a doctrinal statement, that should raise alarm bells against Modernist interpretation.

Exactly.

As to the specific issue: the NO would come within the canon from Trent as a Mass "the Church makes use of." That is a fact that cannot be denied if you hold the V2 popes to be popes of the Catholic Church.

So the the original poster's comment:

So to deny that the New Mass is licit while ignorantly believing that Quo Primum is a dogmatic docuмent is to make one "anathema" unless of course you do not accept Paul VI as a valid pope.

Agreed. If you are not a Sedevacantist you should recognize that the New Mass comes from the true Church of Christ.

There is nothing new under the sun; as it went with old Israel it goes with the Church. Inflated, non-infallible understandings of theologians as the Church's immunity from error are just new manifestations under the new covenant of the theological and other errors (actually abominations) under the old covenant:

Jeremiah 7:4-15

[4] Trust not in lying words, saying: The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, it is the temple of the Lord. [5] For if you will order well your ways, and your doings: if you will execute judgement between a man and his neighbour, [6] If you oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, and walk not after strange gods to your own hurt, [7] I will dwell with you in this place: in the land, which I gave to your fathers from the beginning and for evermore. [8] Behold you put your trust in lying words, which shall not profit you: [9] To steal, to murder, to commit adultery, to swear falsely, to offer to Baalim, and to go after strange gods, which you know not. [10] And you have come, and stood before me in this house, in which my name is called upon, and have said: We are delivered, because we have done all these abominations. [11] Is this house then, in which my name hath been called upon, in your eyes become a den of robbers? I, I am he: I have seen it, saith the Lord. [12] Go ye to my place in Silo, where my name dwelt from the beginning: and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel: [13] And now, because you have done all these works, saith the Lord: and I have spoken to you rising up early, and speaking, and you have not heard: and I have called you, and you have not answered: [14] I will do to this house, in which my name is called upon, and in which you trust, and to the places which I have given you and your fathers, as I did to Silo. [15] And I will cast you away from before my face, as I have cast away all your brethren, the whole seed of Ephraim.

Haydock commentary on 7:4 -

Ver. 4.  Lord.  The triple repetition shews the vain confidence of the people, who blindly imagined that the temple would screen them, (C.) and that external sacrifices would suffice.  But they were rejected with the temple.  W.

Why was the NO imposed on us, "Israel"? For what happened before Vatican II, which is a chastisement and correction from God. Those who find Him in the NO have to dig deep and not rely on externals, on the beautiful old rite.

Just read the OT prophets and try to understand this mess we are in from a historical perspective, from the perspective God gave us in Scripture, which means looking to the example of OT Israel.

The "abominations" of the Church go back before Vatican II, way further back. Look, for example, at the issue of usury, and the work Michael Hoffman has done studying that.

The popes are valid popes, valid High Priests of the Church under the new covenant, and sometimes as mistaken (and worse) as some High Priests of old.  

The Church, i.e. the pope, is immune from error in defining truths of the faith and declaring revelation, just as Vatican I says. Apart from that sphere, all kinds of error (and worse) can enter, and the contrary speak of theologians that "the Church can say or preach no wrong" is just prideful vanity and deception - and set the stage for this mess.

Yes, Stubborn, canon 7 canonized all Masses up to and including the Latin Mass and that canon, believe it or not, is still in effect. Therefore, all of the faithful are still bound to this canon. This canon does not become irrelevant simply because it is included in a Council that ended hundreds of years ago. So when Pope Paul VI (the man you admittedly recognize as a "true pope") created the New Mass in 1969, all of the faithful were and are still bound to accept it under this canon. Whether you like the New Mass or whether you despise it doesn't matter.

CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

The New Mass, created by a man whom you consider a legitimate pope, is simply another Mass in the Roman Catholic Church. There are, as of this date, 23 other different Masses in the Roman Catholic Church under different rites. This New Mass is obviously a different "ceremony," with different "vestments," and different "outward signs." And to say that this New Mass is impious, rather than pious, is to be "anathema." I cannot make it any clearer than that.

However, you are not bound to accept the New Mass under this canon if you consider Pope Paul VI an illegitimate pope because he, as you probably already believe, created a New Mass that is wickedly evil and non-Catholic.

Therefore, how can any member of the faithful violate canon 7 when the New Mass was created by someone who has no supreme authority to do such a thing? How can any member of the faithful violate this canon when the person who created this "counterfeit-Catholic" Mass has no authority? How can any practicing Roman Catholic violate this canon when the New Mass is  invalid because it was created by someone who is not a legitimate pope? The answer to these 3 questions is: They Can't.

It's only when you place yourself in the untenable position of rejecting the New Mass as invalid while recognizing Pope Paul VI as a legitimate pope that you fall into hypocrisy.

Yes, Stubborn, canon 7 canonized all Masses up to and including the Latin Mass and that canon, believe it or not, is still in effect. Therefore, all of the faithful are still bound to this canon. This canon does not become irrelevant simply because it is included in a Council that ended hundreds of years ago. So when Pope Paul VI (the man you admittedly recognize as a "true pope") created the New Mass in 1969, all of the faithful were and are still bound to accept it under this canon. Whether you like the New Mass or whether you despise it doesn't matter.

No, we are not bound to the new "mass". Quo Primum bound us to the True Mass forever. Your misunderstanding of Trent is something you will need to get over.

You are stuck on your "pope problem", as diagnosed by Fr. Cekada. I have come to realize no amount of Catholic reasoning will change your misguided thinking. The mass of PPVI is at least least illegal, therefore illicit, therefore immoral, therefore a sin. No matter what anyone says, we are bound to avoid sin unless we want to go to hell.

The law of Quo Primum is still in force and will always remain in force - there is no one and no thing on earth that can ever change that, not even another pope. The popes themselves are bound by the law or Quo Primum.

Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church, established by Pope St. Pius V for the very purpose of protecting Her Liturgy, forever.   If we say that the law of Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.

Are you trying to say the Church has no way of protecting her own liturgy now?

Sorry, Stubborn, but I do not have a "pope problem." It is members of the SSPX and SSPX Resistance, in particular, who have a "pope problem." I recognize Pope Francis as the pope of the Roman Catholic Church. I take it you're a sedevacantist?? If so, I give you credit for being honest about who you really are even though I respectfully disagree with you.

Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church, established by Pope St. Pius V for the very purpose of protecting Her Liturgy, forever.   If we say that the law of Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.

Are you trying to say the Church has no way of protecting her own liturgy now?

Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church, established by Pope St. Pius V for the very purpose of protecting Her Liturgy, forever.   If we say that the law of Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.

Are you trying to say the Church has no way of protecting her own liturgy now?

Please do not put words into my mouth. I never said that the Church doesn't have a way of protecting her own liturgy now. I do not know how you draw that conclusion from what I have written before.

I have considered the purpose of Quo Primum and it is merely A LAW of the Church....not the law of the Church. It is a law, however, regarding a mere discipline of the faith as a means of safeguarding the good order of the Church. It is not an infallible dogma that binds the entire Church and had never claimed to be one. What you forget to remember is that discipline is subject to change and had Quo Primum been promulgated as a "Dogmatic Declaration," then you would be absolutely correct in claiming that Quo Primum was "forever binding."

Quo Primum merely "granted the right" to celebrate Mass according to the Tridentine Missal. And just as the right was granted, Popes also had the right to "change the discipline." For example, many popes since 1570 have disobeyed Quo Primum #5 which says:

#5 - "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."

Why have popes throughout the centuries blatantly disobeyed this so-called "forever binding" docuмent? Because they could. Because they are popes who realized that Quo Primum is not Catholic Dogma. Because popes, along with anyone else who studies Quo Primum, realizes that it is a disciplinary docuмent and not a doctrinal docuмent. Therefore, since discipline is subject to change, Quo Primum is subject to change.

If the popes believed that Quo Primum was "forever binding," then there would've been no changes whatsoever over the centuries. That's because the slightest change would violate the specific orders in paragraph #5.