CathInfo.com

Canon XIII prevents the clergy from saying Mass in whatever rite they please or with whatever modification or innovation they want to add. There is all there is to it.  I don't care what Fr. Hesse says and Fr. Kramer even less; but I care what the Church actually says.

If I provided the historical context of the Tridentine canon is not because I want to undermine its dogmatic status; or because I believe that it applied then; but no longer applies now, as the modernists do.  The dogma is not subject to change according to time. However, this "universal truth that is a formal object of divine and Catholic Faith" simply has absolutely nothing to do with your claims. It concerns something else, completely different. It prevents priests from changing the approved rites by the Holy See into new ones. It is true then; and it is true forever. You don't want having individual priests all over the world modifying and creating new liturgical rites at whim. That is why the Authority to do so is reserved to the HOLY SEE ALONE.

You may seriously reconsider your reasons for rejecting the 1962's Mass, because I tell with you with all certainty, that the Tridentine canon has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Rather than correcting your errors you re-post the same non-sense with qualifications that supposedly excuse your blunder. Canon XIII does not “prevent” anything.  It is a revealed truth.  Those that do not comport their lives with the revealed truth are heretics by definition.  After posting your disclaimer which is an accurate descriptive definition of dogma, you repeat the same blunder you posted before saying, “It prevents priests from changing the approved rites by the Holy See into new ones.”  The dogma “prevents” nothing.  It is not a law; it is not a command; it is not a preceptive norm, it is not a regulation, it is a revealed truth that the intellect must conform itself as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Laws, commands, preceptive norms, regulations, etc. are in the category of authority/obedience.  Dogmas are in the category of truth/falsehood.  The Church may or may not create canonical laws to enforce the conformity of Catholics to revealed truth by imposing a criminal penalty for its violation, but the categories remain distinct.

And for the record, you do not care what the “Church actually says,” you only care about what you say conforms to what you want to do.

It is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastor whomsoever can change the “received and approved” immemorial rite of Mass into a new rite.  This truth binds ever faithful Catholic.  The denial of this truth is heresy by definition.  To affirm as you have, that this revealed truth binds everyone in the Church but not the pope is absurd.  The pope is bound by every dogma as much as every other Catholic.  That is the nature of TRUTH itself.  Your claim that this truth binds everyone but the pope could only be possible if it were a preceptive norm but it is not. You peddle this non-sense by corrupting the translation of the dogma and the nature of dogma itself.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and those who corrupt dogma incur a double curse from God for destroying their neighbors landmarks.

You cannot tell anyone anything with “all certainty” because you reject dogma as your rule of faith.  Therefore, you know nothing with “all certainty.”  We reject the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite because the Popes JPII, Benedict XVI and Francis have all relegated this Missal to an object of mere discipline and declared that this Missal is the same ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’ as the 1969 Bugnini Missal.  Now I could offer you several arguments why this is so, but I have not because that would simply be my opinion to explain the facts as they are, and people like you would confuse and conflate the meaning of the word “because,” which can be either a reason for or the cause of something.
That being the case, I will stick only to the facts and the necessary implications that follow. 

You are not part of the Resistance.  You are a sedevacantist who has abandoned the Church for one of your own making.  You refuse to conform your religion to dogmatic truth.  In the end, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.  The Resistance can only be effective if it is grounded on the immutable truth of Catholic dogma.  If the Resistance does not learn this truth they will end in utter failure.

No Stanley, you do not understand the argument correctly.  I am not familiar with the changes in the breviary but the breviary is not the “received and approved” rite and even if it were, my argument is NOT grounded upon making formal judgments that are reserved to properly constituted authority.  My argument is grounded upon drawing conclusions from a few simple facts:

The breviary is the official prayer of the Church. It is part of the liturgy of the Church. But you just dismiss the historical argument as if it doesn't matter. I could have made similar historical observations from reforms of the missal.

It appears to me that your argument is incompatible with liturgical history. If your argument is not incompatible, you're not doing a great job of explaining how.

a)      The “received and approved” rite was ended before 1962 because Rome under three popes has legally relegated this Missal to an Indult and to a grant of legal privilege attached to unacceptable conditions for faithful Catholics.  This fact is absolutely incompatible with a “received and approved” rite.

I want to make sure I understand this. So if an indult were ever given to use, for example, the 1949 missal, that would mean the "received and approved" had to have ended before then, and therefore would rule out the 1949 missal as "received and approved"?

And therefore the faithful would be required to find a mass following an even older missal?