No pope can bind another pope on matters liturgical. Pius XII changed the Holy Week ceremonies before Vatican II.
He had every right to do so. However, he did not change the nature of the Mass. Not one time. If you look at the symbolism in the Mass, as well as the prayers, you will see that Catholic teachings are expressed and affirmed in the Mass. That is not something the novus ordo does at all. And since the Mass does involve matters of faith, the nature of it is binding. For example, you can not say something like, "This is the cup of the new and everlasting Covenant which will be shed for you and for all" because it is a denial of already established Catholic teaching.
The Mass is the Mass, no matter what Wathen says. This has been argued ad nauseam here, for two years, and the traditionalists ultimately boil down their argument to saying that the Novus Ordo doesn't emphasize the sacrificial aspect of the Mass enough.
Of course, what's behind that is the flawed logic that the Holy Spirit is somehow less with Paul VI and JP II than He was with Pius V.
Is that really what it boils down to? There is still the issue of legality. The novus ordo is not a valid Mass because Quo Primum forbade any new missals to be used. Now, since novus ordo has its own missal, we have a problem, don't we?
And here's something which completely refutes any notion that this all a completely disciplinary matter. A quote from a CFN article:
First of all, for the sake of argument, let us assume that it was something merely disciplinary. It would not follow logically, therefore, that the creation of the Novus Ordo was permissible. Because the Church's doctrine regarding liturgy is formulated in many pronouncements-----infallible pronouncements-----before Quo Primum was ever issued.
It was the Council of Trent that solemnly declared anathema-----that is, it is a heresy-----to say that any pastor in the Church, whosoever he may be, has the power to change the traditional rite into a new rite. This is found in Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:"
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."
By this line of reasoning, not even a pope can allow the novus ordo to exist without being condemned by the Church for it.
Again, I bring this up not to express my preference for a invalid "rite", but to explain the true Catholic position regarding the Mass.
Not even your schismatic SSPX bishops maintain that the Novus Ordo is invalid.
You're so far out on a limb you're with the sedevacantists.
That's why that line of reasoning is nonsense.
Again, I bring this up not to express my preference for a invalid "rite", but to explain the true Catholic position regarding the Mass.
Your bringing this up shows that you're in schism, pure and simple. Ultima Ratio has done an eloquent job of defending the SSPX position, which position is still wrong.
First of all, for the sake of argument, let us assume that it was something merely disciplinary. It would not follow logically, therefore, that the creation of the Novus Ordo was permissible. Because the Church's doctrine regarding liturgy is formulated in many pronouncements-----infallible pronouncements-----before Quo Primum was ever issued.Besides Trent, what documents are you referring too?
It was the Council of Trent that solemnly declared anathema-----that is, it is a heresy-----to say that any pastor in the Church, whosoever he may be, has the power to change the traditional rite into a new rite. This is found in Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:"LOL. This hardly condemns a Pope changing things. It is saying that once the Church approves a Rite (“the received and approved rites”) a priest cannot go about changing it at whimsy. It doesn’t say that the Church cannot approve a new Rite in the future."If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."By this line of reasoning, not even a pope can allow the novus ordo to exist without being condemned by the Church for it.
This prooftexting is horrible. This quote isn’t even close to saying what you claim it says. If it did, all the changes made by future Popes would render even the Missal the SSPX uses, and the various missals used by the Sedevacantists, all invalid. As Pius XII made crystal clear, anticipating you sedevacantists by decades, the Pope and the Church always retain the power to develop new Rites, and to change old ones:
22. As circumstances and the needs of Christians warrant, public worship is organized, developed and enriched by new rites, ceremonies and regulations, always with the single end in view, "that we may use these external signs to keep us alert, learn from them what distance we have come along the road, and by them be heartened to go on further with more eager step; for the effect will be more precious the warmer the affection which precedes it."[25] Here then is a better and more suitable way to raise the heart to God. Thenceforth the priesthood of Jesus Christ is a living and continuous reality through all the ages to the end of time, since the liturgy is nothing more nor less than the exercise of this priestly function. Like her divine Head, the Church is forever present in the midst of her children. She aids and exhorts them to holiness, so that they may one day return to the Father in heaven clothed in that beauteous raiment of the supernatural. To all who are born to life on earth she gives a second, supernatural kind of birth. She arms them with the Holy Spirit for the struggle against the implacable enemy. She gathers all Christians about her altars, inviting and urging them repeatedly to take part in the celebration of the Mass, feeding them with the Bread of angels to make them ever stronger. She purifies and consoles the hearts that sin has wounded and soiled. Solemnly she consecrates those whom God has called to the priestly ministry. She fortifies with new gifts of grace the chaste nuptials of those who are destined to found and bring up a Christian family. When as last she has soothed and refreshed the closing hours of this earthly life by holy Viaticum and extreme unction, with the utmost affection she accompanies the mortal remains of her children to the grave, lays them reverently to rest, and confides them to the protection of the cross, against the day when they will triumph over death and rise again. She has a further solemn blessing and invocation for those of her children who dedicate themselves to the service of God in the life of religious perfection. Finally, she extends to the souls in purgatory, who implore her intercession and her prayers, the helping hand which may lead them happily at last to eternal blessedness in heaven.So who is right, you or Pius XII? I’ll stick with the Popes.. . . .
44. Since, therefore, it is the priest chiefly who performs the sacred liturgy in the name of the Church, its organization, regulation and details cannot but be subject to Church authority. This conclusion, based on the nature of Christian worship itself, is further confirmed by the testimony of history.
. . . .
49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow--keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact--to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."
53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.
58. It follows from this that 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 those he judges to require modification. [50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; [patent note, this echoes and explains your Trent quote] concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.
. . . .
65. In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained. Let no one arrogate to himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will. Only the Sovereign Pontiff, as the successor of Saint Peter, charged by the divine Redeemer with the feeding of His entire flock,[54] and with him, in obedience to the Apostolic See, the bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church of God,"[55] have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people. Consequently, Venerable Brethren, whenever you assert your authority--even on occasion with wholesome severity --you are not merely acquitting yourselves of your duty; you are defending the very will of the Founder of the Church.
Again, I bring this up not to express my preference for a invalid "rite", but to explain the true Catholic position regarding the Mass.You contradict the Popes, yet claim the authority to “explain” the “true Catholic position.” Just like the Old Catholics who rejected Vatican I, you are schismatic and wrong.
patent +AMDG