Replies

Dear CoD,

You have been badly, and sadly misinformed. There are some things in the Mass which are unchangeable, there others that may be changed. No pope may bind a future pope on things which are changeable in the liturgy. To the degree that you assert that one did, you are incorrect. And many popes made changes to the Mass after Pope Pius V.

But if you want to go down that road, with those arguments, then you've pretty much accepted the arguments of the schism. How sad.

In the meanwhile, THIS pope has specifically stated that to say the indult, one must have the bishop's permission. To say the old rite without it is to disobey bishop AND pope.

If you say otherwise, then you are in the SSPX camp, or worse. You are saying that there are multiple Magisteria. When you get to that point, you're already most of the way down the street to becoming a Protestant.

sitetest

"No pope may bind a future pope on things which are changeable in the liturgy. To the degree that you assert that one did, you are incorrect. And many popes made changes to the Mass after Pope Pius V."

1. The purpose of Pius V was to fix the Mass for all time. This very purpose would be undermined if another pope could abrogate this declaration. But, in fact, the question is moot--since Paul VI never abrogated the old Mass. Hence, the papal bull of Pius V stands.

2. Many popes made changes--but only in very minor ways that did not touch the liturgy in any essential way. The Novus Ordo was not such a change. It was the fabrication of a wholly new rite--which had never occurred before and was an alarming departure from tradition. So you cannot make the false claim that Paul VI "changed" anything. He did not make changes. He concocted something altogether new and different, starting from scratch, without the aid of the Holy Spirit.

3. As for disobedience--it is never absolutely proscribed. There is a higher command than pope or bishops, and that is God's own law. St. Paul made this statement to the Galatians and it is irrefutable: "If even an angel came down from Heaven and preached to you a gospel other than what I have preached, let him be anathema." So it is not enough for a superior to give a command and expect obedience. He must give a command which does not superced his own authority in the first place. He must be, in other words, give commands in conformity with Sacred Tradition. This is because the faith itself supercedes everything else. One is not obliged to follow commands which contravene the imperatives of the Catholic faith.

No pope may bind a future pope on things which are changeable in the liturgy

So you are declaring Pius V to be in error? Pius V granted a universal indult for all time. Pius V acted to protect the sacred liturgy. Are you trying to say that was not within his power?

There is a disturbing, 'nails on a chalkboard' trend emerging here among certain posters. Where do you get off decreeing what I am and what I believe? It is not your business, nor within your power to declare me "SSPX", "Protestant" or "non-Catholic" in your eyes. Even if it was you are not in possession of any facts to make that decision. You and a few other posters here need to stick to the facts and not resort to temper tantrums and personal attacks when things don't go your way. If you can't enter into a logical, civil discussion then don't bother at all.