I don't think the issue is whether a pope can impose a different Catholic rite (ie. accidental changes).  The issue is whether a pope can impose a rite which is not Catholic (ie. substantial changes).

Gerard from FE,

Your arguing technical points from encyclicals and applying the circuмstances surrounding declarations does not accomplish what you believe that it does.
The statements of Pius XII are applicable to the Catholic liturgy of the Catholic Church and within the two thousand year Tradition of the Church.
As an aside he was trying to re-harness the genie that he had let out of the bottle earlier with his ill conceived changes which was then beating at his door again demanding more modernization.

Back on topic, the Novus Ordo is not a work of the Catholic Church, it is not OF the Catholic Church, it is alien and foreign to the Tradition of the Church, and there fore it is not what Pius nor anyone else has in mind when discussing the powers of a pontiff to regulate liturgy.
The Catholic Church does not create liturgies which have been so de-Catholigized as to make them useful to heretics who are outside of the Church and are Christ's enemies, and therefore useless as a true liturgy of the Catholic Church, and no pope or council can change that reality.

As to the council of Trent or the solemn condemnations of Pius VI in Auctorum Fidei, against the vernacular and other features of that Novus Ordo, when the Church declares a solemn truth, while it may be in response to some current controversy, it is nevertheless, a Truth which is at once universal and eternal and is to be held and applied as such forever.

And yes, the Catholicity of a rite is an issue , it is THE issue which needs to be acknowledged before one begins to discuss whether or not Catholic legislation applies to it and whether or not it could ever be considered legitimate in any way.

It is abundantly clear that Pius V intended to bind his successors, A Pope binds his successors in all but positive law and discipline. A pope can indeed change rubrics, feasts, and other disciplinary elements of the liturgy, but never the substance of the Mass because that part of the Mass is the expression of the Catholic Faith of the Catholic Church and not subject to alteration.  Pius V's successors only changed these changeable elements and otherwise held to Quo Primum and thus they explained that they were changing what they had and why. This was always published after and in accordance with Quo Primum.

In conclusion, The Novus Ordo is not a part of the Catholic Church. You might have a more sympathetic ear with Bishop's Williamson and Faure who like you, have views which tend to be finding a means of legitimizing this non-Catholic ritual and accepting it as a slightly deficient Catholic liturgy. Sadly they are influencing the unknowing and weak minded towards this position.
But then the SSPX has never been consistently definitve on this matter.

I'm not arguing technical points, I'm talking about binding details.  

Pius XII's motivations were pure and he obviously knew that something was wrong with the 50's Catholicism and the failure of the Church to adequately deal with the problems of progressivism highlighted at the beginning of the Century.  

The Novus Ordo is just as much work of the Catholic Church as any other Liturgy, In fact, even moreso because it was introduced by a Pope.  It's just a weak liturgy for the faithful's needs.  Bugnini and the Consilium of course had eirenic motives as did Paul VI, but that's simple prudential error, not heresy.  

Please stop assuming you have the authority to put your own limits on the papal privileges.  They are spelled out and some appeal to "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH" is about as valid as "SCIENCE SAYS…"  

Litrugies develop organically by individuals and small groups adopting and discarding rituals and traditions all from the essentials given by our Lord to the Apostles.  

Obviously many people were horrified by the "stripping" but better described as streamlining that Pius V did. Hence the Ambrosian rite was fought for and restored.  

The "Catholic Church" as you vaguely describe it didn't give us the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. One patriarch adjusted the liturgies of the Antiochian rites.  

Throughout Church history, God has blessed several liturgies and they've served people well and he has let liturgies perish.  

The Novus Ordo is really only unique because of its sweeping influence due to easy communications.  

The Pope has the authority to introduce new rites.  That's a fact. There is no guarantee that they will be effective or the best rites.  

You are simply dancing around trying to find nuances that both allow for history and sustain your unsustainable position on Quo Primum.

The fact that the Liturgy changed very little in the last 500 years simply testifies to it's effectiveness.  It is not irreformable.

Pro Quimum was a disciplinary matter in reaction to the Protestant Revolution. It was not a Divine Illumination and the Missal did not descend from Heaven.  The fact is, the TLM is still effective in protecting Catholics from Protestant ideas.  And if Paul VI's naiveté' he thought those protections were preventing Protestants from entering the Church.  As if the Church is a castle, he lowered the drawbridge and instead of the protestants coming in, the Catholics started leaving.  

I'm convinced at this point, that the Novus Ordo is a symptom of  a larger pre-conciliar problem, that problem has made the Novus Ordo into a larger problem of its own.  

I remember at the time of the election of John Paul I and II, the attrition from the Church was fairly small.  Churches were filled on Sundays to standing room only.  A liturgical crisis was a niche problem.  LeFebvre of course saw it along with a few others, but geo-political concerns were the dominant issues for Catholics in the Church worldwide.  It was the constant, small changes in the liturgy that eventually changed it dramatically and caused people to lose faith.  Communion in the hand was probably more damaging by itself than the entire Novus Ordo liturgy.  Folksy music, casual dress, the women no longer being required to veil. that destroyed the solemnity of the Mass.  Prior to all of that, people in general were quiet and reverent and priests were careful during the initial years of the Novus Ordo.  The '"sign of peace"  was a bowing of each side of the Church to the opposite side much as we bow towards the priest when he processes in.  

I'm sure if you saw liturgies in some of the more obscure churches in the Catholic Church, you would view their rites as alien and unCatholic as well as liturgies prior to Quo Primum.   Some have faded and some are inappropriate for today's needs, but they are completely Catholic.  

You are arguing from a novus ordo perspective.

Nope. I'm not.  I'm arguing from the Catholic perspective, utilizing faith and reason.  You are arguing from a tautological perspective.

This was all presented 20 years ago and held no more water then than it does now.

To you perhaps.  But the arguments based on history, the docuмents and the consistency of the magisterium shows you to be wrong.  

The Novus Ordo  is not a work of the Catholic Church and its its promulgation was not proposed to be as such. Paul the sixth and Benedict XIV both admitted that it is a fabrication.

You are simply sloganeering that's it's not a work of the Catholic Church. I'm sure you can't actually explain what exactly constitutes a "work" of the Catholic Church and how to distinguish it from what is not.  

I'm not an advocate for the Novus Ordo, far from it.  But fabrication or not, the Pope has the power to introduce new rites.  Period.  "New" implies fabrication.  

Do you realize that you are on a Traditional Catholic website?

Everything I've argued is based on traditional Catholic understanding.  Sloganeering about "abominations' and "unCatholic" is just rhetoric.  

Thr Novus Ordo is not Catholic,

Slogan.  It's not Catholic because you need to think it's not Catholic.  

It was not intended to be, if it was , it could not be being use by non-Catholic Protestants who are outside of the Church.

Really? Then I guess the Eastern rites are not Catholic either and since the Anglicans used essentially the same rite now as the TLM, the TLM must not be Catholic either.  Or the Old Catholics for that matter?  

Do you know or pay any attention to the history of the Catholic Church?  

The imposition of the Novus Ordo caused a massive flight of souls from the Church.

Punishment from God. They obviously did not want to fight for the TLM.  

You are skirting very closely to the popalatry practiced by the conciliar entity.

No I'm not.  I'm probably the person that fights more fights against Neo-Ultramontanism than anyone  in the English speaking world.  

But I'm not going to exaggerate my position and depart from the truth by denying the Church's teaching on what the Pope can and can't do.  

A pope is bound in all by his successors save positive law and discipline, and he is also bound by Tradition. That is the long and the short of it.

Take it up with Pius XII.  All things touching the worship of God, the Pope enjoys the power to altar or introduce new rites or rituals.  

A pope as with anyone must follow what the Church does, and what it has always done.  Innovation and novelty have always been condemned by the Church.

No they haven't.  Innovation and novelty are either beneficial or harmful.  Recent Popes warned about the harmful kind.  Pope Gelasius introduced novelties to fight heresies that were going on for one example.  He required communion under both species.  

You seem fixated on the powers granted to the pope as being broad and almost unlimited.

Nope.  Not at all.  He has supreme governing power, he can be resisted in numerous circuмstances but he has the power all the same.  I don't resist the Novus Ordo because the Pope didn't have the right or the power to promulgate it, I resist it because it's a weak liturgy that can weaken my faith.  So i have the right to resist it.  If he promulgates a liturgy that is stronger than the TLM, I don't have any right to resist him.  

It is not that way, when it comes to doctrine, Faith, Morals, and the essentials of Holy Mass. In those matters he is bound to follow the solemn Magisterium, Tradition, and the pronouncements of his predecessors.

Depending on the level of authority invoked. What one Pope can call "rash" and "impious" another can allow.  No Pope can deny the Assumption of the BVM or add a new sacrament or loosen one of the ten commandments.  But you'll find that the Novus Ordo does fulfill the essentials in a weak way for what constitutes the Mass.  

You only acknowledge those binding point which favor the position favoring the Novus ordo and conciliarism and ignore those which refute them.

No. I pointed out that Michael Davies said all Catholics have the right to rebel against the Novus Ordo and demand the TLM due to Immemorial Custom.  But you trashed Micheael Davies because he's Michael Davies and he can't possibly be correct because he doesn't take your position.  Forget the fact that Michael Davies knew Pope Benedict and made it known directly  that the Novus Ordo needs to be suppressed.  Have you done anything comparable?  

When you first began to argue against Quo Primum and defend the sacriledge of the Novus Ordo, I should have known that you are a conciliarist.
Your further argumentation has confirmed that.

That's looney, I'm the one arguing for Quo Primum to be understood as Pius V wrote it and as the Church teaches it should be understood.
, Not misapplied to suit emotional outbursts. It's a papal bull and deserves more respect.  It's not a mad screed by a cartoon Pope.

And to be frank, you don't know what you're talking about.  You didn't' even make an argument from reason.  You just repeat ad nauseum "It's not Catholic"  But you're stopped dead in your tracks when Pius XII says something totally at odd with what you believe.   I can believe you and think Pius XII is wrong.  I can believe you and ignore Church history, I can believe you and pretend the Eastern rites don't exist because the Orthodox use them and I can believe you and deny the law of non-contradiction.  

And not to toot my own horn because I want to, but I can certainly bet that I've done more and better work to fight conciliarism than you have.  I don't think you have even grasped the outlines of the crisis in  the Church.  For you,  it's more likely just an excuse to be contrarian. Sort of like the Orthodox, they don't like the authority of the Church so they use tradition to deny it.  

 

I detect a surge of Rome-friendly comments on this site and am wondering why. What better incentive for supporters of an agreement to become more vocal by using Bp. W's current obsession with conciliar credibility to further their cause. If an agreement is in the offing, it could be that folk are now considering their options.  

I detect a surge of Rome-friendly comments on this site and am wondering why. What better incentive for supporters of an agreement to become more vocal by using Bp. W's current obsession with conciliar credibility to further their cause. If an agreement is in the offing, it could be that folk are now considering their options.  

It's not "Rome-friendly" at all.  It's pointing out that over the last 10 years in my opinion there has been a surge of hot-rhetoric that has started to tilt the doctrinal clarity of many, many trads.  

Clear, rational understanding is quickly being replaced by sloganeering, rallying cries and hyperbole coupled with a lot of false conclusions.  

People don't seem to be able to analyze the situation and respond to the realities with the proper sense of righteous indignation.  

I think the online arguments of Fr. Gregory Hesse are excellent examples of heated passion that has not overrun the intellect.  

It's my personal opinion that the election of Pope Benedict XVI succeeded in fracturing traditional Catholicism and pushing a majority of adherents to go soft towards Rome on one side and push towards more simplistic answers like the sedevacantist position on the other side.  

"But Pope Pius V exempted himself and by extension the future Popes from that law (Quo Primum)."

What are you talking about?!!  St Pius V didn't exempt himself or any pope from following Quo Primum.  Read Pius X's revision of the breviary.  Read John XXIII's constitution for the 1962 missal revision.  Read Benedict's Motu Proprio.  Every single one of them reference Quo Primum as being a current law of the Church, which it still is.

"But Pope Pius V exempted himself and by extension the future Popes from that law (Quo Primum)."

What are you talking about?!!  St Pius V didn't exempt himself or any pope from following Quo Primum.  Read Pius X's revision of the breviary.  Read John XXIII's constitution for the 1962 missal revision.  Read Benedict's Motu Proprio.  Every single one of them reference Quo Primum as being a current law of the Church, which it still is.

Thank you. It does bear repeating as many times as necessary.