The silence of the GTV rebellious schismatics is deafening. Who is man enough to answer? Which of the many subsequent revisions of the 1570 Quo Primum Missal DID NOT violate "in perpetuity?"
Which Roman Rite Missal Revision DOES NOT Violate Quo Primum? Which Revised Missal Represents The UNADULTERATED TRUE TLM? Changes from the 1570 Missal to the 1962 Missal, with dates Changes to the Ordinary of Mass 1570 — Pius V promulgates the Roman Missal This is the baseline. 1604 — Clement VIII Revises the Missal and makes various textual and rubrical corrections. 1634 — Urban VIII Further revision, particularly of the liturgical texts and hymns. 1884 — Leo XIII New typical edition with various revisions. 1920 — Benedict XV Major revision following the work begun by Pius X. New calendar and revisions to rubrics and texts. 1951/1952 — Pius XII Experimental restoration of the Easter Vigil. This is the beginning of the major modern Holy Week transformation. 1955 — Pius XII Judica me removed from Palm Sunday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. Holy Week radically reformed. People's Confiteor at Communion ultimately eliminated in the subsequent rubrical reform. Good Friday and Holy Saturday …More
@brhenry the mistake that I and many others made/make is drawing the line at Quo Primum on the belief that the Mass cannot be changed. A pope cannot legally bind the legislative power of his successor. Pope St. Pius V even altered his codified Missal. The Tridentine Reform was not to create a new mass but to get rid of the garbage. The problem during his time is the same now. The Mass was codified to stop liturgical abuse. The Novus Ordo is the apotheosis of abuse. Unlike any liturgical changes prior to VCII, there was always a respect for what came before and preservation of continuity. The new mass doesn't try for continuity but erasure; No preservation only a declaration of obsolescence. I have answered your question, and I have one for you. Why the disdain and animosity for the Tridentine Mass? What, in your opinion, makes the Novus Ordo better?
The silence of the GTV rebellious schismatics is deafening. Who is man enough to answer? Which of the many subsequent revisions of the 1570 Quo Primum Missal DID NOT violate "in perpetuity?"
It was verbatim in perpetuity. All the revisions were only corrections of the existing Roman Rite having - up to the 1962 edition - Quo primum tempore as the legal basis of the Roman Missal. Please check the 1962 edition and you will find the full text of Quo primum at the beginning of the missal. Then there came the Novus Ordo i.e. the completely new rite of Bugnini-Montini.
@V.R.S. Come now, "Only corrections???" You were being honest, what happened? Well, there are dozens of rebel "traditionalist" sects that continue to splinter and split every year over private judgements of proper "corrections." The only thing that is truely "in perpetuity" in Christianity is the rebellion of private judgement, and we know who is leading the endless "non serviam" sects.
@brhenry the mistake that I and many others made/make is drawing the line at Quo Primum on the belief that the Mass cannot be changed. A pope cannot legally bind the legislative power of his successor. Pope St. Pius V even altered his codified Missal. The Tridentine Reform was not to create a new mass but to get rid of the garbage. The problem during his time is the same now. The Mass was codified to stop liturgical abuse. The Novus Ordo is the apotheosis of abuse. Unlike any liturgical changes prior to VCII, there was always a respect for what came before and preservation of continuity. The new mass doesn't try for continuity but erasure; No preservation only a declaration of obsolescence. I have answered your question, and I have one for you. Why the disdain and animosity for the Tridentine Mass? What, in your opinion, makes the Novus Ordo better?