I Can Not Support The Idea Of The SSPX Signing Anything

[JMartyr]

Where is this mysterious infallible document that says a Pope couldn't foster a harmful rite on the Church?

I have to say I do wonder this myself 

This is the only thing I have found. Afterwards is SSPX commentary:
In 1794, the constitution Auctorem Fidei stated that " as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome, but which is even dangerous and harmful."

 Father Gaudron SSPX comments: This text, which has neither the authority or the precision of a dogmatic definition, shows very well that the ecclesiastical authorities enjoy a certain infallibility in disciplinary and liturgical matters, but does not indicate the conditions of its exercise nor its exact limits. While waiting for the Church to decide the matter, theologians are reduced to hypotheses on the matter.

I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:  

 1124 The Church's faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]).45 The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.

1125 For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.

Well, The NO seems to violate 1125.

[Old Salt]

I am praying hard for the SSPX. If we could get all those chapels and priests within the legal structures of the Church oh how marvelous that would be! It would also give the liberals something to chew on.

Oh yeah, look how much good the FSSP has done! 

The FSSP brings the traditional Mass to thousands of Catholics and educates people on traditional Catholicism. 

If we are going to complain about results lets look at the SSPX.  The SSPX has been around twice as long as the FSSP and hasn't fixed the Church either.  By your standard they are a failure too. 

At least they are trying - or was it the FSSP that was in Rome recently?  Oh that's right, they would never be allowed by their Modernist bishop to question Vatican II and the New Mass openly to Rome - they are censored in that regard.

Rome has not asked the SSPX to engage in discussions to help Rome.
Rome is trying to be merciful to the SSPX by bringing them back into canonical regular standing.
The FSSP is fine.

[Someone1776]

Notice how in the other thread I posted a quote from St Pius V in which he stated that the Mass was the Mass - nothing was to be added to, taken away from &c.

Using QUO PRIMUM to argue that the TLM can never be altered or even abolished is a pretty lousy argument and makes traditionalists look like they have no arguments against the NO, when in fact they have many good critiques, which is why you find very few traditional priests making this argument.  The Pope does not have the power the make binding on all his successors a specific liturgy.  The reason why the NO is bad liturgy isn't because it violates QUO PRIMUM, which it doesn't.  It's a bad liturgy because it has a different theology behind it that obscures traditional views of the Mass.  

[JMartyr]

I am praying hard for the SSPX. If we could get all those chapels and priests within the legal structures of the Church oh how marvelous that would be! It would also give the liberals something to chew on.

Oh yeah, look how much good the FSSP has done! 

The FSSP brings the traditional Mass to thousands of Catholics and educates people on traditional Catholicism. 

If we are going to complain about results lets look at the SSPX.  The SSPX has been around twice as long as the FSSP and hasn't fixed the Church either.  By your standard they are a failure too. 

At least they are trying - or was it the FSSP that was in Rome recently?  Oh that's right, they would never be allowed by their Modernist bishop to question Vatican II and the New Mass openly to Rome - they are censored in that regard.

Rome has not asked the SSPX to engage in discussions to help Rome.
Rome is trying to be merciful to the SSPX by bringing them back into canonical regular standing.
The FSSP is fine.

Why aren't the real enemies of the Church held to the same standard as the SSPX? Just look at a typical NO parish website. It's a protestant invasion. Horrifying!!

[Arun]

Notice how in the other thread I posted a quote from St Pius V in which he stated that the Mass was the Mass - nothing was to be added to, taken away from &c.

Using QUO PRIMUM to argue that the TLM can never be altered or even abolished is a pretty lousy argument and makes traditionalists look like they have no arguments against the NO, when in fact they have many good critiques, which is why you find very few traditional priests making this argument.  The Pope does not have the power the make binding on all his successors a specific liturgy.  The reason why the NO is bad liturgy isn't because it violates QUO PRIMUM, which doesn't.  It's a bad liturgy because it has a different theology behind it that obscures traditional views of the Mass.  

I dunno. You're the only person that has responded to it in two separate threads...

[Arun]

I am praying hard for the SSPX. If we could get all those chapels and priests within the legal structures of the Church oh how marvelous that would be! It would also give the liberals something to chew on.

Oh yeah, look how much good the FSSP has done! 

The FSSP brings the traditional Mass to thousands of Catholics and educates people on traditional Catholicism. 

If we are going to complain about results lets look at the SSPX.  The SSPX has been around twice as long as the FSSP and hasn't fixed the Church either.  By your standard they are a failure too. 

At least they are trying - or was it the FSSP that was in Rome recently?  Oh that's right, they would never be allowed by their Modernist bishop to question Vatican II and the New Mass openly to Rome - they are censored in that regard.

Rome has not asked the SSPX to engage in discussions to help Rome.
Rome is trying to be merciful to the SSPX by bringing them back into canonical regular standing.
The FSSP is fine.

Why aren't the real enemies of the Church held to the same standard as the SSPX? Just look at a typical NO parish website. It's a protestant invasion. Horrifying!!

You must understand that to people like Old Salt, that IS the Faith now. Attacking it's face value will only drive him into a defensive position.

[Old Salt]

I am praying hard for the SSPX. If we could get all those chapels and priests within the legal structures of the Church oh how marvelous that would be! It would also give the liberals something to chew on.

Oh yeah, look how much good the FSSP has done! 

The FSSP brings the traditional Mass to thousands of Catholics and educates people on traditional Catholicism. 

If we are going to complain about results lets look at the SSPX.  The SSPX has been around twice as long as the FSSP and hasn't fixed the Church either.  By your standard they are a failure too. 

At least they are trying - or was it the FSSP that was in Rome recently?  Oh that's right, they would never be allowed by their Modernist bishop to question Vatican II and the New Mass openly to Rome - they are censored in that regard.

Rome has not asked the SSPX to engage in discussions to help Rome.
Rome is trying to be merciful to the SSPX by bringing them back into canonical regular standing.
The FSSP is fine.

Why aren't the real enemies of the Church held to the same standard as the SSPX? Just look at a typical NO parish website. It's a protestant invasion. Horrifying!!

I completely agree.
I personally think the FSSPX are fine, other than the points I have raised before.
I am just stating what Rome states the discussions are about.

The real enemies of the Church need to man up much more than the FSSPX.

[Arun]

I am praying hard for the SSPX. If we could get all those chapels and priests within the legal structures of the Church oh how marvelous that would be! It would also give the liberals something to chew on.

Oh yeah, look how much good the FSSP has done! 

The FSSP brings the traditional Mass to thousands of Catholics and educates people on traditional Catholicism. 

If we are going to complain about results lets look at the SSPX.  The SSPX has been around twice as long as the FSSP and hasn't fixed the Church either.  By your standard they are a failure too. 

At least they are trying - or was it the FSSP that was in Rome recently?  Oh that's right, they would never be allowed by their Modernist bishop to question Vatican II and the New Mass openly to Rome - they are censored in that regard.

Rome has not asked the SSPX to engage in discussions to help Rome.
Rome is trying to be merciful to the SSPX by bringing them back into canonical regular standing.
The FSSP is fine.

Why aren't the real enemies of the Church held to the same standard as the SSPX? Just look at a typical NO parish website. It's a protestant invasion. Horrifying!!

I completely agree.
I personally think the FSSPX are fine, other than the points I have raised before.
I am just stating what Rome states the discussions are about.

The real enemies of the Church need to man up much more than the FSSPX.

I must admit I never in a million years expected you to say that, based on your other posts in the tank...

[Someone1776]

Notice how in the other thread I posted a quote from St Pius V in which he stated that the Mass was the Mass - nothing was to be added to, taken away from &c.

Using QUO PRIMUM to argue that the TLM can never be altered or even abolished is a pretty lousy argument and makes traditionalists look like they have no arguments against the NO, when in fact they have many good critiques, which is why you find very few traditional priests making this argument.  The Pope does not have the power the make binding on all his successors a specific liturgy.  The reason why the NO is bad liturgy isn't because it violates QUO PRIMUM, which doesn't.  It's a bad liturgy because it has a different theology behind it that obscures traditional views of the Mass.  

I dunno. You're the only person that has responded to it in two separate threads...

Father Cekeda has written the following.  Although he is advocating a sedevacantist argument, he is correct here:

      Father Laisney trots out yet another old canard: the tale that Paul VI did not abrogate (revoke) St. Pius V’s Bull Quo Primum.

      Advocates of this position sometimes cite a passage in the Code which states that “a more recent law given by competent authority, abrogates a former law, if it expressly orders abrogation.”

      Paul VI, the argument goes, did not mention Quo Primum by name, so he did not expressly abrogate it. Quo Primum, then, never lost its force, and we are all still free to celebrate the old Mass.

      But proponents of this notion are engaging in wishful thinking. Expressly, in the canon quoted above, does not just mean “by name.” A legislator may “expressly” revoke a law in another way — and this is what occurred here, when Paul VI, after he gave his volumus to the New Mass, added the following clause:

      “Notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances of Our Predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those worthy of special mention and amendment.”

      This clause expressly abrogates Quo Primum.

      First, the Bull Quo Primum falls into the category of the most solemn type of pontifical legal Act — a Papal or Apostolic Constitution.[30] And in the passage quoted from Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution, he specifically revokes the “Apostolic Constitutions” of his predecessors.

      Second, in order to revoke a law expressly, a pope is not required to mention it by name. Express revocation also takes place, says the canonist Cicognani, if the legislator inserts “abrogatory or derogatory clauses, as is common in decrees, rescripts, and other pontifical acts: notwithstanding anything to the contrary, notwithstanding  in any respect anything to the contrary, though worthy of special mention.”

      Paul VI, in other words, used the exact type of language required to expressly revoke a prior law.

      And in so doing, Paul VI again used some of the same phrases St. Pius V employed in Quo Primum to revoke liturgical laws of his predecessors:

      “Notwithstanding preceding Apostolic constitutions and ordinances… and whatever laws and customs there be to the contrary.”

      Again, if this language worked in 1570, it also worked in 1969.

      In light of all the foregoing, one cannot continue to promote the myth that Paul VI’s legislation did not expressly abrogate Quo Primum.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

.

[Old Salt]

I am praying hard for the SSPX. If we could get all those chapels and priests within the legal structures of the Church oh how marvelous that would be! It would also give the liberals something to chew on.

Oh yeah, look how much good the FSSP has done! 

The FSSP brings the traditional Mass to thousands of Catholics and educates people on traditional Catholicism. 

If we are going to complain about results lets look at the SSPX.  The SSPX has been around twice as long as the FSSP and hasn't fixed the Church either.  By your standard they are a failure too. 

At least they are trying - or was it the FSSP that was in Rome recently?  Oh that's right, they would never be allowed by their Modernist bishop to question Vatican II and the New Mass openly to Rome - they are censored in that regard.

Rome has not asked the SSPX to engage in discussions to help Rome.
Rome is trying to be merciful to the SSPX by bringing them back into canonical regular standing.
The FSSP is fine.

Why aren't the real enemies of the Church held to the same standard as the SSPX? Just look at a typical NO parish website. It's a protestant invasion. Horrifying!!

I completely agree.
I personally think the FSSPX are fine, other than the points I have raised before.
I am just stating what Rome states the discussions are about.

The real enemies of the Church need to man up much more than the FSSPX.

I must admit I never in a million years expected you to say that, based on your other posts in the tank...

I have only criticised the Society on two counts in my past posts.
Everyone knows what they are.
Other than them [and they are big] the FSSPX as a whole are great priests, in my experience.