Replies

1. The Pius XII quotation from Mediator Dei refers only to minor adjustments to the ancient liturgy. Not in his wildest dreams did this good pope ever suppose his successor would do so rash and foolish a thing as to invent a mass out of whole cloth and then ban the Mass of the Ages. By approval of "new rites" he certainly did not mean the destruction of the ancient Roman Rite itself which he took pains to argue had evolved for more than a thousand years under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself. In fact, he says that there are parts of the ancient Mass so sacred that no man--not even a pope--dare even touch them to modify them. Certain slight adjustments were indeed permitted, therefore--in rubrics, in minor textual additions or subtractions, but nothing substantive might ever be changed. This message was the whole tenor of Mediator Dei--an argument to liturgists, in fact, to keep hands off the Sacred Liturgy. To use this encyclical, therefore, as if that pope would have approved of the radical institution of a whole new rite is not only dishonest--it does Pius XII a disservice and perverts his message.

2. The opinions traditionalists express are the exact OPPOSITE of private opinions. They are the inherited opinions gleaned from centuries of Catholic teachings of popes and councils, from works such as MEDIATOR DEI itself which you distort by reading into that document what was never intended. We know this because such a thing as his successor Paul VI had done--the actual fabrication of a Mass by a committee of humanists--was a novelty entirely unprecedented. Never in the whole history of the Church had such a thing ever happened. It was nowhere on any good Catholic's radar screen in the 1950s and certainly not on Pius XII's--who would have been horrified by the consequent destruction of the ancient Mass for which he shows such veneration in his encyclical. So if traditionalists speak with certitude about certain issues, particularly on the Mass, it is because there is a two-thousand-year history behind us--the writings of so many preconciliar popes and saints and every one of the councils before Vatican II, including that greatest council of all--the Council of Trent, which proclaimed anathemas against the sort of liturgy concocted by Bugnini and his Protestant predecessors--one that would dare replace the sacrifice on Calvary with a memorial meal only. In any case, here are the words of Pius himself, in a few paragraphs following the ones you have cited and which tell a far different story from the passages you have highlighted:
___________________________________________________________

The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with the prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

__________________________________________________________

3. It is not true that Greek was used several centuries before switching to Latin--a common misconception. Scholars have found evidence of the use of Latin in the earliest days of Christianity in Rome and have revised their thinking on this. Check the scholarship.

4. Pius concluded by warning that the modernists who wished to impose a new liturgical order, if given their will, would some day cause us to search in vain for the red sanctuary light before the altar. He little knew how prescient he was being to warn of this.

The Pius XII quotation from Mediator Dei refers only to minor adjustments to the ancient liturgy.
--ultima ratio

Wrong. You are confusing what you want desperately to believe with what he said. He didn't say "minor adjustments," he said,

"... the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to INTRODUCE and APPROVE NEW RITES, as also to MODIFY [ not "minor adjustments" but MODIFY ] those HE [ NOT YOU ] judges to require modification.
--Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, Nov. 20, 1947

Not in his wildest dreams did this good pope ever suppose his successor would do so rash and foolish a thing as to invent a mass out of whole cloth and then ban the Mass of the Ages.
--ultima ratio

Wrong again. First, you pretend to possess certainty about that which you cannot be certain. You don't know what Pius XII thought his successor might do. Secondly, his successors did not "invent a mass." Nor did they "ban the mass of the ages." So at least we can be certain about this: You really don't know what you are talking about.

By approval of "new rites" he certainly did not mean the destruction of the ancient Roman Rite itself which he took pains to argue had evolved for more than a thousand years under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself.
--ultima ratio

Once again (as usual), you are completely wrong. The Tridentine Mass is still said in dioceses where the local local Bishop has given his approval for this. Although the Pope has the authority to do away with it, he hasn't. He (not you) has been given the keys of the kingdom. Besides making clear that the Sovereign Pontiff has the right to introduce new rites, Pius XII made clear that the Roman Rite is not superior to other rites but on a par with them:

If in this encyclical letter We treat chiefly of the Latin liturgy, it is not because We esteem less highly the venerable liturgies of the Eastern Church, whose ancient and honorable ritual traditions are just as dear to Us.
--Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, Nov. 20, 1947

Just because you have a preference for the Roman Rite does not give you a license to dismember the earthly Body of Christ with your schismatic views. Why don't you put your bloody hatchet away and just attend an approved Tridentine Mass somewhere?

In fact, he says that there are parts of the ancient Mass so sacred that no man--not even a pope--dare even touch them to modify them. Certain slight adjustments were indeed permitted, therefore--in rubrics, in minor textual additions or subtractions, but nothing substantive might ever be changed. This message was the whole tenor of Mediator Dei--an argument to liturgists, in fact, to keep hands off the Sacred Liturgy. To use this encyclical, therefore, as if that pope would have approved of the radical institution of a whole new rite is not only dishonest--it does Pius XII a disservice and perverts his message.
--ultima ratio

The perversion of his message is yours. The Pope said the Sovereign Pontiff had the right to introduce a new rite in Mediator Dei. That was cited above. And yet you still charge:

To use this encyclical, therefore, as if that pope would have approved of the ... institution of a whole new rite ...
--ultima ratio

Are you capable of reading anything but your preconceived delusions into the words of the Popes? Your silly interpretation of what he said is not what he said. Try to grasp this: The POPE has the authority to determine what is substantive and what isn't. NOT YOU. Whatever PETER (not you) binds on earth is bound in heaven. It doesn't matter what your trite opinion of his decisions is.

You jam more distortions and illogical trash into a few paragraphs that anybody I have ever read. Sheesh! Who has time to respond to it all? I certainly don't. So I will just respond to one more ridiculous notion of yours:

It is not true that Greek was used several centuries before switching to Latin--a common misconception. Scholars have found evidence of the use of Latin in the earliest days of Christianity in Rome and have revised their thinking on this. Check the scholarship.
--ultima ratio

The official transition from Greek to Latin liturgy took place in the reign of Pope Damasus (366-384 AD). The church had already converted the entire known world by then (without the help of the Tridentine Mass). Take a look at Patrology by Johannes Quasten, Volume II, page 154. Reprinted by Christian Classics ^TM 1983.