It doesn't HAVE to apply to the whole Catholic world. You missed the entire point of the quote.
Tell me then, how it is universal?
Because a univeral law is also a "particular which has force in a certain limited territory." Which means the entire Latin Church.
Yes but which is infallible then, a universal universal law or particular universal law? I think the definition is quite redundant myself. Either a law is universal or it is not. In any event I don't even think the NOM can take the definition of a particular law as it is now KNOWN to be only an option in the Roman Church.
You're the one with displaying "common illogic," so don't go bashing Fr. Cekada by calling him a "self-proclaimed theologian."
I didn't But is he not one?
You may disagree with many of his conclusions, but he is one of the brightest traditional minds out there. He is an encyclopedia of Catholic knowledge (and others as well). The man is a genius. I know this from personal interaction with him.
I don't doubt he knows more than I do.
These are the guys with multiple PHDS in Church law, history, theology. These are the theologians of the Church. These are the guys who had all there works approved by bishops before Vatican II and are thus free from error.
They were still just men, neels, with human weakness and fallibility. St Thomas Aquinas (ora pro nobis) is the Theologan of the Church per excellence and yet he got somethings wrong. That's human nature even with PhD's. Just because you wrote before Vatican II doesn't mean you were free from error.
Wrong. It specifically says "ceremonies", which would mean the rubrics of the mass themselves.
You prove my point, the rubrics
are not the words of the Missal but the bodily gestures. Read this definition: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/ceremony