Just for the sake of argument, is it possible that Pius exceeded his authority, in attempting to bind future Popes to his missal, and tying their hands, as it were, regarding any changes? I have never heard apologists for the Novus Ordo make this argument, but it is one that could be made, not saying that I am proposing this, just, as I said above, for the sake of argument. Is it possible that he did, indeed, go beyond his authority in binding future Popes, and that, for whatever reason, nobody ever "called his hand on it" prior to the Vatican II era?
The NO apologists say that one pope's law cannot bind future popes, which is also the reason they end up giving for the new mass, after all, "Equals have no power over each other," as if that's even a reason for doing what has been done.
Snip from a previous post:Question: But the people say that the people make the contention that pope Paul VI had the right so therefore we must accept it.
Fr. Wathen: That of course is a central question. We deny that he had such a right. That exactly is the point. We have every reason to question whether the pope had the authority to introduce a brand new mass, introduce a new Rite of the liturgy of the Western Church.
We believe that when one reads Quo Primum of St. Pius V, he can see clearly that it is altogether forbidden for his successors, any of his successors to go contrary to this law. Here is a key question, whether a successor can override pope Pius V with regard to the establishment of the Rite of the Mass. It’s a key question.
It was never considered that the pope could go contrary to this ruling because Quo Primum was issued to protect the Mass. It was as strong of legislation as the pope could possibly impose. If we say that his successor is not bound by this legislation, we have to say that the Church has no way of protecting it’s own liturgy....
...
Question: The Council of Trent Canon 6 says “if anyone says the Mass contains errors, therefore should be abrogated let them be anathema”. Would something like that hold any weight pertaining to what pope Paul VI did? In a way he was saying that it did contain errors therefore should be abrogated did he not?
Fr.I would not say that his changing the Rite of the Mass was a suggestion that there was fault in the old Mass, that canon simply states that the doctrine expressed by the prayers and the ritual of the traditional Mass are thoroughly Catholic, that everyone may have confidence that there is no doctrinal error expressed by this Rite. The matter of the new mass must be considered first of all why the new mass was introduced. Was it introduced because it was suggested there was some deficiency in the old mass, was it introduced for less cogent reasons? It was never suggested that there was some deficiency, it was suggested that there was room for improvement.
……no sufficient reason was ever given, and no one has a sufficient reason. The only reason they have is that one pope may override the rules and the laws of another. This is an error.......
Question: Fr., there's an old legal principle which says; "he who makes the law can change the law", would this also apply in the church? In other words, we had pope Paul VI making a change, did he not have a right to make this change and must not we, as Catholics, follow whatever change he authorizes?
Fr. Wathen:I do not agree that he who makes the law may always abrogate it, especially if he who makes the law is doing nothing else but enunciating and particularizing a tradition.
When pope Pius V established the Mass, he was merely canonizing a tradition. He was fixing something and making it irrevocable and unchangeable after centuries of development. Pope Pius V, once he made this law, had no right to change it, simply because, that is an error. The pope's business is not to make and then to change, the pope's business is to preserve, to formulate, in order that there be a preservation of all that was established, even by the Apostles.
There was a period during the 60s in which changed began to be made in the traditional latin mass. We know now that these changes were conditional. Which is to say that they had the purpose of conditioning people for a situation which the liturgy would always be subject to change. The changes were of various sorts, the purpose however was not so much the changes themselves, but to educate the people to a totally new idea, an anti-traditional idea, that the liturgy henceforth would be subject to indefinite change - which is to say not only will the external ritual be patient of an infinite variety of changes, but the doctrine also, the beliefs which the ritual expresses will also be under constant revolution........
…… The Mass of the Roman Rite, there is only one, Pius V said that there could never be but one, and he had the authority to impose this for all time.
[People have the idea that] he (PPV) did not have the authority to do so, even to the extent of binding all his successors, this is to say that he, the pope, did not even know the limits of his own authority. This is to say that this pope attempted to do something which he had no authority to do. And we say well then if he did not have that authority, then his authority was limited. We say that if his authority is limited, then all his successors authority is limited also.We say yes, the authority of the pope is limited, but it is not limited to establishing the liturgy of the Mass for all time, [rather] it is limited to where a successor cannot discard this Mass because of a whimsy or a deviation in Catholic belief, and there has to be a deviation in Catholic belief on the part of pope Paul VI who would introduce such a mass as what we have, the Novus Ordo Missae..." 
Topic: Did Pope St Pius V exceed his authority? (Read 5949 times)