Can the Papacy bind itself, Quo Primum

[Jayne]

received means passed on, handed on. NO hasn't been handed down. You don't create Mass; it must be a product of organic growth. It takes centuries not weeks. And you don't write down Eucharistic prayers on a napkin in a cafe.

Here is the usual definition of "received":

received adjective
1. Generally approved or agreed upon:
accepted, conventional, orthodox, recognized, sanctioned.

2. Adhering to beliefs or practices approved by authority or tradition:
canonical, orthodox, sanctioned, time-honored.

So I have understood "received and approved rites" to mean the officially authorized rites.  Do you have some reason to think that "received" should be understood with a non-standard meaning in this passage?  I can think of no other context in which the word has the meaning "product of organic growth".

[martin88nyc]

received means passed on, handed on. NO hasn't been handed down. You don't create Mass; it must be a product of organic growth. It takes centuries not weeks. And you don't write down Eucharistic prayers on a napkin in a cafe.

Here is the usual definition of "received":

received adjective
1. Generally approved or agreed upon:
accepted, conventional, orthodox, recognized, sanctioned.

2. Adhering to beliefs or practices approved by authority or tradition:
canonical, orthodox, sanctioned, time-honored.

So I have understood "received and approved rites" to mean the officially authorized rites.  Do you have some reason to think that "received" should be understood with a non-standard meaning in this passage?  I can think of no other context in which the word has the meaning "product of organic growth".

you are right Jayne according to these definitions you provided but I had read an article in CFN and it explains it differently so I don't know anymore. Here is the article:
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page66/salza_novus_ordo.html

The Church has taught this divine truth throughout her history. For example, in the Papal Oath of Coronation, which originates at least as far back as Pope St. Agatho in 678 A.D. (and which was set aside by Paul VI), every Pope swore to change nothing of the "received tradition." Pope Pius IV's Tridentine Profession of Faith, which is binding on the souls of all Catholics, likewise expresses this principle by requiring adherence to the "received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments."[2] The "received and approved rites of the Church" originate from the Spirit of Christ and the traditions of the apostles which have been handed down to us through the ages.

Because the "received and approved rites" are part of the Church's infallible expression of the unchanging Deposit of Faith, as inspired and nurtured by the Holy Ghost, they cannot be set aside or changed into new rites. This is why the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) infallibly declared:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."[3]

[martin88nyc]

In this context it is in accord with my understanding.
"From the time the Christian religion began to be spread, she has held unchangeable and taught uncorrupted throughout the world the doctrines which she has received once and for all from her patron and founder, St. Peter." - Pope Saint Nicholas the Great

Correct me if I am wrong. to be honest I am not sure exactly. A good canonist would definitely give us the right answer.

[Counter Revolutionary]

received means passed on, handed on. NO hasn't been handed down. You don't create Mass; it must be a product of organic growth. It takes centuries not weeks. And you don't write down Eucharistic prayers on a napkin in a cafe.

Here is the usual definition of "received":

received adjective
1. Generally approved or agreed upon:
accepted, conventional, orthodox, recognized, sanctioned.

2. Adhering to beliefs or practices approved by authority or tradition:
canonical, orthodox, sanctioned, time-honored.

So I have understood "received and approved rites" to mean the officially authorized rites.  Do you have some reason to think that "received" should be understood with a non-standard meaning in this passage?  I can think of no other context in which the word has the meaning "product of organic growth".

you are right Jayne according to these definitions you provided but I had read an article in CFN and it explains it differently so I don't know anymore. Here is the article:
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page66/salza_novus_ordo.html

The Church has taught this divine truth throughout her history. For example, in the Papal Oath of Coronation, which originates at least as far back as Pope St. Agatho in 678 A.D. (and which was set aside by Paul VI), every Pope swore to change nothing of the "received tradition." Pope Pius IV's Tridentine Profession of Faith, which is binding on the souls of all Catholics, likewise expresses this principle by requiring adherence to the "received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments."[2] The "received and approved rites of the Church" originate from the Spirit of Christ and the traditions of the apostles which have been handed down to us through the ages.

Because the "received and approved rites" are part of the Church's infallible expression of the unchanging Deposit of Faith, as inspired and nurtured by the Holy Ghost, they cannot be set aside or changed into new rites. This is why the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) infallibly declared:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."[3]

John Salza's article "The Novus Ordo Mass and Divine Law" that you linked to is truly excellent and should be read by all Catholics. Anyone who has doubts about the issue should say a prayer to the Holy Ghost asking for enlightenment and should read Mr. Salza's article.

[Jayne]

received means passed on, handed on. NO hasn't been handed down. You don't create Mass; it must be a product of organic growth. It takes centuries not weeks. And you don't write down Eucharistic prayers on a napkin in a cafe.

Here is the usual definition of "received":

received adjective
1. Generally approved or agreed upon:
accepted, conventional, orthodox, recognized, sanctioned.

2. Adhering to beliefs or practices approved by authority or tradition:
canonical, orthodox, sanctioned, time-honored.

So I have understood "received and approved rites" to mean the officially authorized rites.  Do you have some reason to think that "received" should be understood with a non-standard meaning in this passage?  I can think of no other context in which the word has the meaning "product of organic growth".

you are right Jayne according to these definitions you provided but I had read an article in CFN and it explains it differently so I don't know anymore. Here is the article:
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page66/salza_novus_ordo.html

The Church has taught this divine truth throughout her history. For example, in the Papal Oath of Coronation, which originates at least as far back as Pope St. Agatho in 678 A.D. (and which was set aside by Paul VI), every Pope swore to change nothing of the ?received tradition.? Pope Pius IV?s Tridentine Profession of Faith, which is binding on the souls of all Catholics, likewise expresses this principle by requiring adherence to the ?received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.?[2] The ?received and approved rites of the Church? originate from the Spirit of Christ and the traditions of the apostles which have been handed down to us through the ages.

Because the ?received and approved rites? are part of the Church?s infallible expression of the unchanging Deposit of Faith, as inspired and nurtured by the Holy Ghost, they cannot be set aside or changed into new rites. This is why the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) infallibly declared:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."[3]

I read the whole article and he seems to be conflating two different uses of the word "received".  It a logical fallacy known as equivocation. He refers to Scripture passages in which St. Paul wrote of how he received divine unchangeable truths.    That is the past tense of the verb "to receive".   But the adjective "received" has the meaning given in the dictionary, as quoted above.  It does not mean divine unchangeable truths because that is what St Paul received any more than it means a package full of jigsaw puzzles because that is what I received last week.  Putting the word "received" in front of "rites" does not mean the rites are unchangeable. 

If we were to accept Mr. Salza's interpretation of the word "received" in the Council of Trent, then it would be in conflict with Mediator Dei and Pius XII would be a heretic.  His article is based on flawed logic and its implications if true would be manifestly absurd.

John Salza's article "The Novus Ordo Mass and Divine Law" that you linked to is truly excellent and should be read by all Catholics. Anyone who has doubts about the issue should say a prayer to the Holy Ghost asking for enlightenment and should read Mr. Salza's article.

It is a very bad article.  It is illogical and possibly intellectually dishonest.  But it is useful to have the link so people can see for themselves. 

[mikemac]

There is a specific work called The Apostolic Constitutions.  That is its name.  There is also a term "apostolic constitution" that refers to papal decrees.  If you check Wikipedia, you will see that there are two separate entries for these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions

You have mixed them up and used the description of the book as the definition of the term.  Here is the correct defintion:

An apostolic constitution (Latin: constitutio apostolica) is the highest level of decree issued by the Pope. The use of the term constitution comes from Latin constitutio, which referred to any important law issued by the Roman emperor, and is retained in church documents because of the inheritance that the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church received from Roman law.
By their nature, apostolic constitutions are addressed to the public. Generic constitutions use the title apostolic constitution, and treat on solemn matters of the church, such as the promulgation of laws or definitive teachings. The forms dogmatic constitution and pastoral constitution are titles sometimes used to be more descriptive as to the document's purpose.
Apostolic constitutions are issued as papal bulls because of their solemn, public form.

Quod a Nobis and Quo Primum are the same kind of document with the same level of authority.  It does not matter if one uses the term "apostolic constitution" or "papal bull" for them.

You are right.  I just looked at the Catholic encyclopedia for Apostolic constitution, without looking at Wikipedia.  The Catholic encyclopedia calls it Papal Constitutions.

Papal Constitutions
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04321a.htm

Papal Constitutions are ordinations issued by the Roman pontiffs and binding those for whom they are issued, whether they be for all the faithful or for special classes or individuals.
...
It must not be supposed, however, that even in ecclesiastical usage the word constitution is restricted to papal ordinances; it is also employed for conciliar, synodal, and episcopal mandates, though more rarely in later times. The name canon is generally, though not exclusively, given to conciliar decrees (see ECCLESIASTICAL CANONS). Letters emanating from the pope, though all designated constitutions, receive more specific names according to their form and their subject matter. As to their form, pontifical constitutions may be either Bulls or Briefs. The former are used for the more important and permanent decrees and begin: Pius (or name of pope) Episcopus, Servus servorum Dei; the latter are headed by the name of the ruling pontiff: Pius PP. X. Pope Leo XIII (29 Dec., 1878) made some changes in the exterior form of papal Bulls (see BULLS AND BRIEFS). As to subject-matter, the term constitution, if used in a restricted sense, denotes some statute which the Vicar of Christ issues in solemn form either to the whole Christian world or to part of it, with the intention of permanently binding those to whom it is addressed. When the papal letters are addressed to the bishops of the entire Church they are denominated Encyclicals. This is the most usual form employed by the popes for treating questions of doctrine and discipline. When pontifical enactments take the form of responses they are called decretal epistles. If they be issued motu proprio (that is without a request having been made to the Holy See), they are called decreta, though this name has also a more general significance (see DECREES). Ordinances issued to individuals concerning matters of minor or transient importance are called Rescripts (see PAPAL RESCRIPTS).
...
The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ. That this includes the power of making obligatory laws is evident. Moreover, that the popes have the intention of binding the faithful directly and immediately is plain from the mandatory form of their constitutions. Bishops, therefore, are not at liberty to accept or refuse papal enactments because, in their judgment, they are ill-suited to the times. Still less can the lower clergy or the civil power (see EXEQUATUR; PLACET) possess any authority to declare pontifical constitutions invalid or prevent their due promulgation. The Gallican opinions to the contrary are no longer tenable after the decrees of the Council of the Vatican (Sess. IV, ch. iii). If a papal constitution, published in Rome for the whole Church, were not formally promulgated in a particular region, the faithful would nevertheless be bound by it, if it concerned faith or morals. If it referred to matters of discipline only, its observance would not be urgent, not because of any defect in its binding force, but solely because in such circumstances the pope is presumed to have suspended the obligation for the time being. This leads to the question of the proper promulgation of papal laws (see LAW). The common teaching now is that promulgation in Rome makes them obligatory for the whole world. The method employed is to affix the decrees at the portals of St. Peter's, of St. John Lateran, of the Apostolic Chancery and in the Piazza de' Fiori.

Yeah the above lists them in the same order as the quote from the Papal Bull Catholic encyclopedia page (actually Bulls and Briefs page) in Reply #85, with "constitutions" coming first.  And apparently a constitution can be called a bull if it is affixed with the seal and begins with "Pius (or name of pope) Episcopus, Servus servorum Dei".  Yeah you are right again, Quo Primum and Quod a Nobis are both apostolic constitutions.

Quo Primum
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi05qp.htm

All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.

Breviary
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02768b.htm

The Council of Trent, which effected reforms in so many directions, also took up the idea of revising the Breviary; a commission was appointed concerning whose deliberations we have not much information, but it began to make definite inquiries about the subject entrusted to it. The council separated before these preliminaries could be concluded; so it was decided to leave the task of editing a new Breviary in the pope's own hands. The commission appointed by the council was not dissolved, and continued its investigations. St. Pius V, at the beginning of his pontificate (1566), appointed new members to it and otherwise stimulated its activity, with the result that a Breviary appeared in 1568, prefaced by the famous Bull, "Quod a nobis". The commission had adopted wise and reasonable principles: not to invent a new Breviary and a new Liturgy; to stand by tradition; to keep all that was worth keeping, but at the same time to correct the multitude of errors which had crept into the Breviaries and to weigh just demands and complaints. Following these lines, they corrected the lessons, or legends, of the saints and revised the Calendar; and while respecting ancient liturgical formularies such as the collects, they introduced needful changes in certain details. More intimate accounts of this revision should be studied at length in the approved authorities on the history of the Breviary. Here it will be enough to give a short sketch of the chief points affecting this Breviary, as it is substantially the same as that used at this date. The celebrated Bull of approval, "Quod a nobis" (9 July, 1568), which prefaced it, explains the reasons which had weighed with Rome in putting forth an official text of public prayer, and gives an account of the labours which had been undertaken to ensure its correction; it withdrew the papal approbation from all Breviaries which could not show a prescriptive right of at least two centuries of existence. Any Church which had not such an ancient Breviary was bound to adopt that of Rome. The new Calendar was freed from a large number of feasts, so that the ferial Office was once more accorded a chance of occupying a less obscure position than of late it had. At the same time the real foundation of the Breviary — the Psalter — was respected, the principal alterations made being in the lessons. The legends of the saints were carefully revised, as also the homilies. The work was one not only of critical revision, but also of discriminating conservatism, and was received with general approval. The greater number of the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, England, and, generally, all the Catholic States, accepted this Breviary, saving only certain districts, as Milan and Toledo, where ancient Rites were retained.

The above page just calls Quod a nobis a Bull, but seeing it had to do with revising the Breviary the same way Divino Afflatu had to do with reforming the Breviary as seen below, Quod a nobis must also be an apostolic constitution seeing Divino Afflatu is described as an apostolic constitution.

The above Breviary page goes on to speak of the reforms or attempts of reforms of the Roman Breviary by Sixtus V, Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Benedict XIV, Pius IV, Pius VI, Pius IX and Leo XIII, then the Reform of the Roman Breviary page speaks of the reforms of the Roman Breviary by Pius X.

Reform of the Roman Breviary
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16013a.htm

By the Apostolic Constitution "Divino Afflatu" of Pius X (1 November, 1911), a change was made in the psalter of the Roman Breviary. Instead of printing, together with the psalms, those portions of the Office which specially require rubrics, such as the invitatory, hymns for the seasons, blessings, absolutions, chapters, suffrages, dominical prayers, Benedictus, Magnificat, Te Deum, etc., these are now all in due order printed by themselves under the title Ordinary. The psalms, under the title Psaltery, are printed together, so arranged that the entire psalter may be chanted or recited each week, and so distributed, or, when too long, divided, that approximately there may be the same number of verses for each day's Office. This change has been made with a view to restoring the original use of the liturgy, which provided for the chant or recitation of the entire Psaltery each week. It became necessary by the fact that as the saints' days, with common or special Offices, grew more numerous, the ordinary Sunday and week-day or ferial Offices, and consequently certain of the psalms, were rarely recited. In making the change, occasion was taken to facilitate the reading of the Office by the separation of the Ordinary and Psaltery proper, but chiefly by allotting about the same number of verses for each day. It is only a first step in the revision of the entire Breviary, as agreed upon at the Vatican Council. It was proposed by a committee of liturgists appointed by Pius X, adopted by the Congregation of Rites, and sanctioned by the pope to go into effect on 1 January, 1913, in accordance with the new rubrics regulating thenceforth the reading of the Divine Office.

I accept this.  However, my understanding of what this means appears to be drastically different than yours.  Apparently you think that this proves that Quo Primum is binding on subsequent popes.  I really cannot follow your reasoning here.

The above shows, like you said that Quo Primum and Quod a nobis, as well as Divino Afflatu are all apostolic constitutions and thus quoting the Papal Constitutions page above, "The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ."

You said;

Are you prepared to make the case that Pope St. Pius X broke the law of Pius V (in Quod a Nobis - of equal force to Quo Primum) when he reformed the Breviary? Those changes were arguably greater than those to the Mass. There are plenty of people who can argue it was harmful.  If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI.

You are not taking into account whether the apostolic constitution concerns faith or morals (ie Quo Primum regarding the Latin Rite Mass) which would make the faithful bound by it or whether the apostolic constitution refers to matters of discipline only (ie Quod a Nobis, Divino Afflatu and all the other apostolic constitutions that referred to matters of discipline of the rubrics of the Roman Breviary) which its observance would not be urgent.  See the bolded and underlined parts of the quotes from the Papal Constitutions page above.  Quo Primum and Quod a Nobis cannot be compared for this reason.

Also note the underlined part of the Breviary page above that says "Here it will be enough to give a short sketch of the chief points affecting this Breviary, as it is substantially the same as that used at this date." The author must have been talking about the apostolic constitution Divino Afflatu when he says "it is substantially the same as that used at this date" because Pius X published Divino Afflatu on November 1, 1911 while the Catholic encyclopedia was published later in 1917.
The Making of the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/00001a.htm

See Fr. Hesse's video as he also talks about the difference between matters of faith and morals (ie the Latin Rite Mass) and matters of discipline (ie the rubrics of the Roman Breviary).

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8lh59FgURU[/yt]

So Jayne you can't say "If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI."  Pius X is not guilty of anything because his reforms to the Roman Breviary, just like all the other popes before him had to do with matters of discipline.  Pius V's Quo Primum is binding on the whole Church including future popes because it has to do with matters of faith and morals.  Quo Primum is fairly explicit in saying that it binds the whole Church with "the force of law in perpetuity", as you can see in the quote from it below.

Jayne you say "Those changes were arguably greater than those to the Mass."  But Paul VI cannot be declared guilty of changes to the Mass because he did not make changes, abolish or abrogate the Latin Rite Mass; most likely because of how Quo Primum reads below.  The promulgation of the Novus Ordo Rite Mass is another story.
   
Quo Primum
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi05qp.htm

All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or possessed of any other rank or preeminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, howsoever ancient, which they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid, established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than 200 years.   

[Jayne]

In this context it is in accord with my understanding.
"From the time the Christian religion began to be spread, she has held unchangeable and taught uncorrupted throughout the world the doctrines which she has received once and for all from her patron and founder, St. Peter." - Pope Saint Nicholas the Great

Correct me if I am wrong. to be honest I am not sure exactly. A good canonist would definitely give us the right answer.

Just because we receive true doctrines through the Church, it does not mean that everything we receive is a true doctrine or that the adjective "received" has a different than usual meaning.

If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.

This decree means that priests may not despise, omit or change the officially approved rites of the Church. They must say Mass as authorized by Rome.  This is completely consistent with Mediator Dei which says that only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites, while priests do not.

[Jayne]

The above shows, like you said that Quo Primum and Quod a nobis, as well as Divino Afflatu are all apostolic constitutions and thus quoting the Papal Constitutions page above, "The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ."

You said;

Are you prepared to make the case that Pope St. Pius X broke the law of Pius V (in Quod a Nobis - of equal force to Quo Primum) when he reformed the Breviary? Those changes were arguably greater than those to the Mass. There are plenty of people who can argue it was harmful.  If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI.

You are not taking into account whether the apostolic constitution concerns faith or morals (ie Quo Primum regarding the Latin Rite Mass) which would make the faithful bound by it or whether the apostolic constitution refers to matters of discipline only (ie Quod a Nobis, Divino Afflatu and all the other apostolic constitutions that referred to matters of discipline of the rubrics of the Roman Breviary) which its observance would not be urgent.  See the bolded and underlined parts of the quotes from the Papal Constitutions page above.  Quo Primum and Quod a Nobis cannot be compared for this reason.

Quo Primum and Quod a Nobis are both apostolic constitutions which concern liturgy, and therefore have the exact same level of authority.  There is no reason to claim that one pertains to faith and moral while the other is disciplinary.  Liturgy touches on the faith (lex orendi, lex credendi) and has unchangeable elements, but it can be changed, just as disciplinary matters can.

"The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ."  This is exactly why popes cannot bind future popes.

So Jayne you can't say "If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI."  Pius X is not guilty of anything because his reforms to the Roman Breviary, just like all the other popes before him had to do with matters of discipline.  Pius V's Quo Primum is binding on the whole Church including future popes because it has to do with matters of faith and morals.  Quo Primum is fairly explicit in saying that it binds the whole Church with "the force of law in perpetuity", as you can see in the quote from it below.

Quod a Nobis also says it is in force "in perpetuity". That is not a phrase that makes decress binding on future popes. And if the Tridentine Missal were actually a matter of faith and morals, then Pius V would not have been able to authorize the various other missals that he included.  In matters of faith and morals we do not say, "You can believe this, or this, or this."  There is one single unchangeable truth.  It is precisely because liturgy is primarily disciplinary that it is possible to authorize a variety of options.

[mikemac]

This is completely consistent with Mediator Dei which says that only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites, while priests do not.

Would you please point out in Mediator Dei where it states that "only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites"?
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html

[St.Justin]

"The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ."  This is exactly why popes cannot bind future popes.

Good post Jayne.

Superiors can only bind inferiors. The Popes Have Universal Jurisdiction so no one can bind them to anything.

[Jayne]

This is completely consistent with Mediator Dei which says that only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites, while priests do not.

Would you please point out in Mediator Dei where it states that "only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites"?
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html

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; 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.

[martin88nyc]

This is very enlightening and Mr. Salza may be wrong after all or perhaps he was just trying to make his point legit. Surely we need a canonist to join our ranks.

[Stubborn]

"The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ."  This is exactly why popes cannot bind future popes.

Good post Jayne.

Superiors can only bind inferiors. The Popes Have Universal Jurisdiction so no one can bind them to anything.

Popes are just as bound by right and wrong as the rest of us - no? As such, popes are bound to the laws of previous popes just the same as the rest of us - no? If a pope creates a rite which is certainly contrary to a previous law, then the pope broke that law - no?

The only way to not break the law, is for the pope to first abrogate the that law - he can do that because he has that authority over that law.

But per the law, the new rite simply cannot be both the law and contrary to the law at the same time, not even a pope can make it so - this is simply  common sense.

It is really not complicated at all, actually, it's very basic. It only becomes complicated when people grant popes an authority that popes do not possess, an authority permitting popes to break the existing law as if it never existed in the first place.

The fact is - the law did and still does exist because no pope has ever abrogated it. Ignoring it, which all the conciliar popes have done, is not abrogating it. Breaking it, which all the conciliar popes have done, is not abrogating it. Replacing the law with a contrary new rite is not abrogating it, rather, it is obviously going contrary to the law, therefore it is breaking the law.

Fr. Wathen puts it like this: "We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it..." though not positively, he goes on to conclude "...I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it."

So the question is, what is it that does not make sense here?

[mikemac]

This is completely consistent with Mediator Dei which says that only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites, while priests do not.

Would you please point out in Mediator Dei where it states that "only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites"?
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html

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; 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.

Thank Heavens for Jayne.  After seven pages she finally drops the bomb shell.  We have nothing to complain about now.  Us country bumpkins might as well just all go home.  Might as well shut down this forum.  Nothing to see here anymore.

Oh, but wait.

In the very next paragraph Pope Pius XII condemns the "use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice".

59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

The above paragraph also verifies what Martin said here.

received means passed on, handed on. NO hasn't been handed down. You don't create Mass; it must be a product of organic growth. It takes centuries not weeks. And you don't write down Eucharistic prayers on a napkin in a cafe.

Also see;
Mediator Dei
An Encyclical Condemning Pope Paul VI's Liturgical "Reform"
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2001_March/Mediator_Dei.htm

And see the Ottaviani Intervention;
LETTER ON NOVUS ORDO MISSAE
Cardinal Ottaviani
https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

[Jayne]

This is very enlightening and Mr. Salza may be wrong after all or perhaps he was just trying to make his point legit. Surely we need a canonist to join our ranks.

A canonist would be more helpful for questions of Canon Law.  This discussion seems more within the scope of theology.  However, the problem with Mr. Salza's article does not need specialized knowledge to see, just careful reading.

Most English speakers can tell that "received" is being used differently in the following sentences.

I received a package of jigsaw puzzles in the mail last week.
The standard accent for British English is called Received Pronunciation.

We can all see that is wrong to conflate these meanings or these sentences.  My package did not contain British English.  Nor do these sentences mean that we can say that British English is puzzling. (It might be, but that would be another thread. )  But this is the sort of argument that Mr. Salza made in his article.