The term “universal,” moreover, as applied to a church law, does not refer to the “rite” where a law has force, but rather to the territory where it has force. A standard pre-Vatican II commentary on the Code gives the following division for law:
III. By reason of its extension [ambitus] into: a) universal, which applies in the whole Catholic world; b) particular which has force in a certain limited territory only. (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum 1:50.)
I don't see where the NO applies to the whole Catholic word. Please, explain to me how that is so when not even all Roman priests have to offer it? In theory all Roman priest could reject it so I don't see how it's particular but that for another discussion.
The same commentary speaks of disciplinary laws which it terms “universal,” even though Eastern Rites are automatically exempt from observing them:
Although Greek Catholics are indeed bound by definitions of Catholic doctrine regarding faith and morals, they are nevertheless not bound by disciplinary laws, even universal ones, unless something is laid down for them [the Greeks], or express mention is made of them, or unless the law for the matter regulated is implicitly extended to them also. (1:148. My emphasis.)
This is illogical. If the Eastern Catholic Churches are not bound by universal laws then how are they universal in the first since they don't apply
"in the whole Catholic world"? This is a common illogic I've seen with many self-proclaimed theologians.
Further, in discussing the secondary object of the Church’s infallibility, the authors treat liturgical laws for the Latin Rite as protected by infallibility, without any further qualification.
Who are these authors and what is
their guarantee of infallibility? Mere theologians do not have guaranteed infallibility by the Church and Her Faith.
It would thus appear one could not “save” Paul VI by dismissing the errors and evils of his Novus Ordo as some sort of local aberration approved by him in his capacity as Patriarch of the West.
There is not need to save Paul VI. He was the Pope and as such simply held an Office in which he may have saved himself or not. I hope he did. Lord, grant Thy servant eternal rest.
If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema. (Denziger 954.)
He who maintains that Paul VI and his successors were indeed true popes should not dare to criticize the Novus Ordo — for the Catholic Church through her head on earth does not institute ceremonies and outward signs for celebrating Mass which are “incentives to impiety.” Indeed, the Church solemnly anathematizes those who say otherwise.
This quote is out of context. This anathema merely condemns those who believe that the externals in the Mass; the exterior pomp, beauty, signs and pictures used in the Mass (like the chant, the Signs of the Cross, the majestic missals, and the beautiful priest's vestments) are incentives to impiety. This does not apply to the celebration as a whole nor to the form of the words used in the Missal, this is clearly shown by the words "
in the celebration of the Mass".
Ceremonies, vestments and outward signs are not the words of a particular Missal but rather the general Catholic ethoes.
