Marie Aux,
You keep mixing up the present, past and future and making an argument with all 3 mixed together - that makes no sense. We have to look at what the laws say - not the commentary, or people's OPINIONS about the law or what happened BECAUSE OF the law. We have to look at what is OBLIGATED by the law. This is all that matters.
Below is a series of questions I have. Please answer these and maybe we can get to an agreement on things.
You don't understand Summorum Pontificuм and its related docuмents (still in effect).
"Summorum Pontificuм" (SP) concerns itself with when/where Bishops are to allow the latin mass to be said. It is a revsion of the previous indult law. It does NOT apply, in ANY way, to Quo Primum, which is still law.
Quo Primum says 1) any priest/catholic can say/attend this missal in perpetuity, by papal permission, with no limitations. 2) ALL catholics must ONLY use this missal.
SP puts limitations, contrary to Quo Primum. Quo Primum is a higher law and anything contrary to it is null and void. The reason why it's a higher law is because it says it applies to ALL Catholics, everywhere, under pain of sin. SP does not say it applies to anyone, there are no obligations to follow it and there is no penalty for ignoring it. Hence, SP violates Quo Primum.
Do you agree or disagree?Your claim that: "it matters when the law that issues the missal is put in force" is meaningless. As you can see, Benedict keeps referring to the older indults througout his own docuмents. You need to read them without prejudice.
That comment was in response to your claim that "Benedict already approved a hybrid missal." This isn't possible, since the hybrid missal doesn't yet exist and he's not pope anymore. A pope CANNOT approve something which hasn't happened or hasn't been finished.
The purpose of Summorum Pontificuм was never to "liberate" the 1962 missal but to give it it's proper burial. As I mentioned before, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy (published in 2000), that two rites (Novus Ordo &1962) were too difficult to manage therefore they would eventually have to be merged into one (missal).
Who cares? It hasn't happened yet. You're projecting what the modernists want vs the present. We're talking about CURRENT law, not the future.
That is what he accomplished through Summorum Pontificuм. He authorized Ecclesia Dei to make all the changes necessary to the 1962 missal so that the two "FORMS" would complement each other: " new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal and that "The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard".
Again, it doesn't matter. Firstly, the Ecclesia Dei doesn't exist anymore (as of this month) so any authorization is pointless now. Secondly, popes authorize commissions to do things all the time. It's how governments work. That doesn't mean the commission has the power of the pope or that it can do whatever it wants. Commissions create multiple drafts, which the pope and his advisors review, then changes are made, again and again, until a final version is complete...THEN the pope signs off on it and makes it law.
The hybrid missal which you talk about (which I assume you mean will get rid of the 1962 missal) doesn't yet exist. The (former) Eccelsia Dei commission MIGHT have a close-to-complete draft, but no pope has approved it yet.
Again, the pope can't approve of a missal of the future...unless all the changes are already known and agreed to.
Regarding Summorum Pontificuм, Benedict XVI says: "I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."
The SP law was a continuation of the indult laws. I've admitted this as it's very clear. But these laws are meaningless and are null because they violate Quo Primum, as I explained above. The indult laws oblige NO ONE to follow them, they have NO PENALTIES for violating them and since they contradict a CURRENT LAW, they can/should be ignored.
Do you not understand the legal situation when a lower law (i.e. a city law) contradicts a higher law (i.e. state law)? The lower law is null.
Those who consider the Mass a matter of mere discipline and the pope "master of the liturgy" have to accept the "new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962." Benedict XVI explains why the 1962 missal "was never juridically abrogated" (which implies that it can) : "...when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy..."
Of course the pope can abrogate teh 1962 missal (but no pope has yet). Just like St Pope Pius V abrogated his own missal a few years after Quo Primum. And then, 5-6 popes abrogated the missal after that and issued new ones, all the way down the line from 1571 to 1962. The problem is not the abrogation (this happens all the time with Church law), the problem is if the new missal is DOCTRINALLY/ESSENTIALLY different than the previous ones.
Every missal from the 600s (Pope St Gregory Great's time) til 1962 is DOCTRINALLY/ESSENTIALLY the same. And all these missals were abrogated and replaced with a new missal (the changes being updates to the calendar and other non-essential liturgical matters).
P.s. The pope is "master of the liturgy" when it comes to non-essentials. (i.e. when the pope added the genuflection to the Credo.) Do you agree/disagree?After the "new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962" are implemented, the "juridical abrogation" of the 1962 missal now in use will necesarily follow.
1) Hasn't happened yet. 2) When/if a new missal is made, we'll read the law and see what it says. If the language is non-specific, non-obligatory and non-binding (like the law which created the new mass), then I'll say "who cares?" because no catholic will have to accept it and the 1962 missal will still HAVE TO be used, since Quo Primum demands it.