Pope Pius V seems to treat it so.
If you assert that Quo Primum is dogma, you assume greater authority than the pope, who, by his approval of the new rite (in union, in fact, with the bishops of the Church at Vatican II), has de facto revealed his teaching that it is not dogma or doctrine.
Are you saying that Vatican II was a dogmatic council, in spite of the fact that John XXIII AND Paul VI said explicitly that it was NOT? Now who's setting themselves up as a greater authority than the Popes?
* Now, everyone knows the Breviary was reformed, changed, etc. Yet nobody accuses as a heretic or a destroyer of Tradition he who changed it (remember the Pope who changed it?)
The factt of the matter is that back in the day that was the nomenclature of Papal Encyclicals. That is the way they wrote. It is passing strange for anyone calling themselves traditionalist to accept the idiot idea one Pope could bind all future Popes in matters Liturgical, rendering The Keys nugatory, but, such is the state and "knowledge" of Tradition on the rad-trad schismatic right. They don't know jack about Tradition yet no matter how many times they are corrected they endlessly repeat the same errors
Not at all, actually (and "Pope Pius V seems to treat it so" would be more accurately written "Pope Pius V seemed to treat it so." I think past tense is more appropriate of a dead pope. While he is enjoying the vision of God in heaven as we speak, he is not now the pope).
You have not proved the Quo Primum to be dogma, and I do not think you are competent to argue that Pius V felt that way either, purely from the text of Quo Primum. If you are willing use that tactic, you will be in the same erroneous but fashionable school of thought as "The Jesus Project", which concluded using literary criticism that perhaps one or two of the words of Jesus in Scripture were actually uttered by Jesus!
That Quo Primum is dogma is merely an erroneous assertion of the SSPX and its adherents that is logically and canonically impossible. It catches those who want to be faithful Catholics, loyal to the pope, in a logical vise.
If the pope says that adhering to SSPX results in excommunication, then what SSPX demands must be wrong; otherwise, the pope is erecting a barrier to salvation with his dictum. If he is wrong about what the SSPX espouses, then he is in error about a matter of faith and morals, and the Church is a fraud. If the Church is a fraud, then salvation is also a fraud.
Think of it: in the mind of SSPX, a liturgical preference requires demolition of the Catholic Church!
Are you saying that Vatican II was a dogmatic council, in spite of the fact that John XXIII AND Paul VI said explicitly that it was NOT? Now who's setting themselves up as a greater authority than the Popes?
You really should refrain from twisting what is plainly written. I wrote
If you assert that Quo Primum is dogma, you assume greater authority than the pope, who, by his approval of the new rite (in union, in fact, with the bishops of the Church at Vatican II)... .I included the portion concerning the rest of the bishops (which included Lefebvre, I think) only because you might assert that without the union of all the bishops the new liturgy might not be properly approved. The new liturgy, by the way, is also not dogma. It is only liturgy, like the Tridentine liturgy.
What matters is obedience to the pope, who explicitly condemned adherence to the SSPX with excommunication. That has not been rescinded by Pope Benedict, which means that adherence to SSPX still results in excommunication.
That doesn't matter to schismatics who don't really believe in the teaching and disciplinary authority of the pope, of course, does it?