[ultima ratio]

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

No, but the context says it. The entire encyclical was about making changes in the Tridentine Mass which he approached with great deliberation and caution. I say again, it was inconceivable that any pope would destroy the old Mass by inventing something wholly new.

2. You say, "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."

I am certain because Pius XII was a traditional pope through-and-through. For him Trent had settled the matter of proper Catholic worship. It would have been inconceivable for him to believe that any successor would be so rash as to introduce a new Mass based on nothing prior except Protestant worship, in direct defiance of the strictures of Trent. Pius XII also took seriously his papal oath not to alter Sacred Tradition in any way. He would have assumed subsequent popes would do so likewise.

And of course the Novus Ordo was invented. It threw out the Offertory, substituted a Jewish prayer of Thanksgiving Before Meals, destroyed the ancient three-part sacrificial structure, disguised its propitiatory purpose, changed the Mystery of Faith from Transubstantiation to something else, and emphasized the Virtual Presence of Christ in the congregation and in Scripture over his Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament--which it does its level best to ignore. The only real model for most of this was the example of Protestant worship.

As for banning the Mass of the ages, it is true it was not officially abrogated. Paul VI had not the courage nor the inclination to do this. But the Vatican Gestapo made sure it was shut down everywhere after the introduction of the Bugnini concoction. Priests who continued to say it--except for old priests who were allowed to do so in private--were punished or hounded into retirement. A single exception was made for the English--but the so-called Agatha Christie Indult was a very limited one, making allowance for the old Mass only on very special occasions. In short, except for Archbishop Lefebvre's resistance to this barbarity, the ancient Mass of the Ages was effectively eliminated from the face of the earth. Klaus Gamber says it was "destroyed". I concur with this judgment. So it is not my not ignorance that is the problem, it is yours. There is a historical record--about which you seem blissfully unaware.

3. "Pius XII made clear that the Roman Rite is not superior to other rites but on a par with them..."

It is true he esteemed the venerable liturgies of the eastern rites. But these also, like the Roman Rite, had evolved over the millenia in an organic fashion. To think he would have therefore condoned the abomination of Bugnini's Protestantizing concoction is ridiculous. It is NOT organic, it is a prefabrication, a deceptive attempt to disguise the truths of the faith. He would have done exactly as the Council Fathers did when the first version of the Novus Ordo was shown to them--laughed it out of the hall. Ottaviani's view would likely have been Pius' own: that the new Mass was dangerous to the faith.

4. "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?"

Tut-tut, such inflammatory words. But think about them for a minute. Who REALLY DISMEMBERED the earthly Body of Christ? It was Paul VI who caused hundreds of millions of Catholics around the world to lose their faith, not I. Millions walked away from the New Mass. Some in disgust, some in open contempt, some in anguish. It is not I who am schismatic--I hold tightly to the same Church and the same teachings as Pius XII. It is the NOVELTY-INVENTORS who must answer for their wreckages--for dismembering the Body of Christ, not I.

4. "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..."

He may have great authority, but not in everything he does.
Vatican I prescribed the limits of papal powere: "For the Holy Spirit was not granted to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith."

Popes are not absolute monarchs, as Cardinal Ratzinger reminds us. Their responsibility is primarily to GUARD AND PROTECT what they've received--which was why Pius wishes to emphasize the role of the Pontiff, rather than fanciful liturgists. But we are not living in normal times. We are living in an age where even pontiffs may be irresponsible and careless with the treasures of the faith--in the manner of Paul VI and JPII.

[nika]

And I will ask the Father: and He shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever: The Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, nor knoweth Him. But you shall know Him; because He shall abide with you and shall be in you. ... the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. ... when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will teach you all truth.
--John 14:16-17,26; 16:13

We have it on the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit will be present in the Church forever and will guide it to all truth. This is why we accept the official teachings of the Church and abide by the decisions of its Councils. You refuse to do that. You place your private opinion and the opinions of individual liturgists above the authority of the Church to modify the liturgy. You lead others into your misguided ways. For the sake of those who might actually take you seriously I offer the following thoughts:

The Church had already converted the known world before the official transition of the liturgy from Latin to Greek under the reign of Pope Damasus (366 to 384 A.D.). So you see, the Tridentine Mass is certainly not essential to the Catholic faith. Here are some excerpts from descriptions of the Mass by St. Justin, who was martyred around 165 A.D.

On the day which is dedicated to the sun, all those who live in the cities or who dwell in the countryside gather in a common meeting, and for as long as there is time the Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read. Then, when the reader has finished, the president verbally gives a warning and appeal for the imitation of these good examples.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers, and, as we said before, when our prayer is ended, bread is brought forward along with wine and water, and the president likewise gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people call out their assent, saying the Amen. Then there is the distribution to each and the participation in the Eucharistic elements, which also are sent with the deacons to those who are absent. Those who are wealthy and who wish to do so, contribute whatever they themselves care to give; and the collection is placed with the president, who aids the orphans and widows, and those who through sickness or any other cause are in need, and those who are imprisoned, and the strangers who are sojourning with us - and in short, he takes care of all who are in need.
--First Apology of Justin

Now that certainly doesn't sound exactly like a Tridentine Mass, but it is obvious it is the Mass and there were many who attended Masses like the one described above who were martyred for the faith. So it appears heroic holiness can be achieved without the Tridentine Mass.

Here is an excerpt from the catechetical instructions given to the newly baptized by St. Cyril of Jerusalem around 350 A.D. St. Cyril is teaching them how to receive communion:

In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold them with all carefulness, being on thy guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Wilt thou not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

Then after thou hast partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth thine hands, but bending, and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen, hallow thyself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon thy lips, touch it with thine hands, and hallow thine eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who hath accounted thee worthy of so great mysteries.
--Lecture XXIII, On the Sacred Liturgy and Communion

So, things change. The church went from communion in the hand to receiving on the tongue and back to receiving communion in the hand in our own time. We no longer touch the Eucharist to our eyes or touch our lips while they are still moist with the precious blood and then touch our eys and ears. What would seem irreverent in our time was seen as showing great reverence in another. Things change.

The church has the right to change them. It has done so for centuries. And there have always been those misguided souls like ultima ratio who think the liturgical practices can't ever change from what they are used to. It is dead things that don't move or change. That is because they are not animated by a spirit. The church is alive. It is animated by the Holy Spirit. Those who possess the Spirit change with it. No, we don't change in essentials. But we leave it up to the Holy Spirit in the Church to guide it in making necessary changes to non-essentials. Don't entrust your immortal soul to the silly, amateur opinions of ultima ratio or individual liturgists like Klaus Gamber. Entrust your immortal soul to the Holy Spirit in the Church.