I believe this passage is why the Modernists chose to call Paul 6's missal the "new order". They did not want it to be confused with a revision of the True Mass. In my opinion, God would not allow this level of confusion/deceit, so the Modernists had to be content with the legal definition of "new". They knew they could not abrogate/delete the True Mass; the only way to get rid of it is to create a false liturgy that people would "prefer" and so get rid of the True Mass indirectly.
It's like everything else NO Pax, they call the missal "New" when what they actually did was revise the Roman Missal, then passed that missal off as being "New", it's the same trick they use for most (not all) things NO - just like they call their religion "Catholic" when it is certainly not, and so on.
No, the law prohibits everything they did, which means that what they did was illegal right from the very first word they removed from the Roman Missal for the purpose of eliminating the True Mass.
Missale Romanum was legally on the same level as Quo Primum, so no Quo Primum could not have prohibited Missale Romanum from doing anything. Where laws of equal standing contradict, the newer overrides the older.
If the NO Mass was a revision of the Tridentine Mass as you claim, then it was perfectly lawful to do so.
Topic: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo (Read 33991 times)