Pope Pius IX (Encyclical Qui Nuper, n. 3)

To preserve forever in his Church the unity and doctrine of this faith, Christ chose one of his apostles, Peter, whom he appointed the Prince of his Apostles, his Vicar on earth, and impregnable foundation and head of his Church. Surpassing all others with every dignity of extraordinary authority, power and jurisdiction, he was to feed the Lord’s flock, strengthen his brothers, rule and govern the universal Church. Christ not only desired that his Church remain as one and immaculate to the end of the world, and that its unity in faith, doctrine and form of government remain inviolate. He also willed that the fullness of dignity, power and jurisdiction, integrity and stability of faith given to Peter be handed down in its entirety to the Roman Pontiffs, the successors of this same Peter, who have been placed on this Chair of Peter in Rome, and to whom has been divinely committed the supreme care of the Lord’s entire flock and the supreme rule of the Universal Church.

I’m an inquisition respecter.

One of the most glorious periods in Medieval Catholic history. 🥂

“No king but Christ” is a specious pretense unbeknown to the Christian world prior to the dubiety of ambitious men. These revolutionaries sought to usurp power on the grounds of “justice”, feeding the desires of nobles themselves into abdicating their rightful positions for the purpose of “liberating” oneself of the duties their birthright demands of them. Where legitimate rule is toppled, all else spirals into chaos, with the subjects of the former authority following suit in their abandonment of the societal function bestowed upon them by nature.

The undistorted title given to Our Lord, the King of kings, is thus reduced to nothing more than mere poetry, losing its essence, with these corrupted state officials becoming themselves disloyal subjects, unconstrained by the law of the Lord.

This is the logical conclusion of nominalism. The inversion of the natural order, the verve with which the inferior forces of the world operate. This must be combated, for there is no authority except from God.

The modern world has placed man in such a state that even the superior may lose sight of their vocations or be subjugated to the inferior, at least apparently, in order to survive.

This state truly is despicable, being an inversion of proper order, as it is the superior which justifies the inferior, never the other way around.

It is no wonder that civilization continues to deteriorate in every domain, for the superior, which grant structure and form, are incapable of occupying their proper positions. Instead, the inferior predominate, furthering chaos and leading ever more people astray, far from their natural functions.

Only the most wretched slavery can come of such a situation, paving the way for despots and usurpers where God’s custodians once stood.

“Nature does nothing in vain. It is imperative for each person act in accordance with their nature in order to be content and complete.” -Aristotle

I'll expand on this later.

It's a loophole. If Rome made the Mass exclusively in the vernacular and forbid Latin it would be an unjust law and it would be anathema. they did not do forbid it in theory, but they pretty much did it in practice by making vernacular 99.99% of all Masses. Plus you cannot change the substance of the Missal by Quo Primum which is what the Reformers did. The Novus Ordo Missae was never promulgated officially nor made binding to the Church. Hence, the bull Quo Primum is the one which is still in use, thus binding all Priests of the Roman Latin rite to the Missal of Saint Pius V, under pain of severe penalties.

So since this is the case, and Quo Primum is still binding, the Norvus Ordo Missae is illicit. Though it is still valid, if the priest and sacraments are valid.

It’s a schismatic rite, as per Quo Primum Tempore and the Council of Trent. Valid and illicit if said in Latin, invalid if in the vernacular. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXqneqIafVI.

The Pope has the right to promulgate a new Missal, but Paul VI did not do that. The original Latin text of Missale Romanum of 1969, does not say that it promulgates a new law, nor does it say that the new Missal has the force of law. The English translators mistranslated the Latin and makes it say that the new Missal has the force of law. Compare this correct translation, to the English translation, found here:
http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/la/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6missal.htm

And if it were promulgated, the Holy Spirit would not have been protecting the Church. If you want to promulgate a rite (which you can’t, you’d cease to be Pope), you’d have to bind the entire Church in a document like Quo Primum. All Paul VI did was say he’d like people to use it, literally. He’d like people to use it. Lol. Such authoritative papal language.

Fr. Hesse said that Popes are not bound to follow their predecessors in matters of discipline. However, in matters of faith and morals, the Pope is bound to follow his predecessors. Is the Roman Missal a disciplinary matter, or a matter of faith? Well, It’s a matter of discipline just as much as the canon of Sacred Scriptures. Whomsoever of the pastors of the Church includes the Pope, and the council of Trent is extremely straightforward.

Usually, when the current Pope wishes to say something new, he writes his own document and throws away the previous one.

With the Missal, however, when a new Pope said something, he would add his document AFTER Quo Primum, never throwing it away and always respecting it.

SO How can people say then that either Holy Mass is simply a disciplinary matter, or that Quo Primum is merely legal and not at least in some extent infallible? It is ridiculous.

Quo Primum canonizes the Missal of the Roman Rite as the mass of the Latin Roman Rite. It is an infallible document binding to all future Popes. It rightly suppresses and condemns any rite without at least 200 years of tradition. Such is the case with the schismatic NO. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FABY6aIJw6A where Fr. Hesse explains this in-depth.

“Trent’s decree and Quo Primum are not “matters of ecclesiastical law” but of Divine Positive Law based on revelation. Therefore, Paul VI had no right to change the liturgy.”
- See Canon 13, Session 7 and Canon 9, Session 22 of the Council of Trent.

Quo Primum: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm

Council of Trent:
http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Roman%20Catechism.pdf

Also, for you NOites. Yes, the Norvus Ordo Missae is valid itself, but it is illegal/illicit. Which I have proven.

Courtesy to twitter.com/knight_atlantic for providing most of the information I've gathered here.

I have to note too, "reformable" really isn't the best word to use when discussing QP

Fiat voluntas Dei; God’s will be done

“Some aspects of God’s will are revealed to us by the eternal truth of Nature.

Other matters depend on God’s free choice. To know God’s will in those matters, he has to reveal them to us. We know Christ wants people to be baptized, because he told us.

Most of the time, our own decision-making process involves discernment using the virtue of prudence and the gift of counsel, not explicit divine revelation. God doesn’t tell us whether to eat ham or turkey for lunch.

To seek undue certainty about the future or the hidden things of God, things he hasn’t revealed, is divination. To make assertions about what is or isn’t God’s will in respect to contingent events is dangerous—appointing oneself as God’s prophet or mouthpiece.

This is an affront to God’s sovereignty, as if God cannot act or refrain from acting as he chooses. It also belies a lack of trust, as if we don’t expect God to do anything and instead invoke him like some kind of talisman.

The cases where we can speak for God is the cases he has given us, written in the book of Nature or the book of revealed truth, entrusted to the Church and to those whom Christ appointed to teach on his behalf.”

~Fr. Dylan Schrader