The Liturgical Changes of Pope Pius XII - May a Catholic Reject Laws Promulgated by a Legitimate Pope?

« Modernists, in their attempt to destroy the Catholic liturgy, gradually and cunningly introduced the New “Mass” or Novus Ordo, the new sacraments and the liturgical changes resulting from Vatican II. As a result, traditional Catholics are wary of liturgical change. Some traditionalists have unfortunately gone so far as to reject the legitimate changes introduced by Pope Pius XII, whom they yet consider a true Pope.

They erroneously claim that some of these changes, including the new Holy Week Missal, were the first steps toward the Novus Ordo, due to the involvement of Monsignor Annibale Bugnini and the tinkering of Modernists. These strongly opinionated souls do not reject the changes entirely ; they pick and choose what to accept and what to reject. For example, they observe the Pope’s revision of the Communion fast and permission for evening Masses. Who gives them the authority to determine which liturgical rites, decrees and rubrics to follow?

Pope Pius XII enacted several liturgical changes, among which are the following :

1) For many centuries the Catholic Church required persons to fast from midnight from all food and liquids, including water, before the reception of Holy Communion. In the 1950’s, Pope Pius XII changed the fasting laws to one hour from non-alcoholic drinks and three hours from food and alcoholic drinks. Water and medicine can be taken at any time before receiving the Holy Eucharist. As a result of this change, Catholics are able to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion more frequently. American priests who often offered multiple or later Masses on Sundays appreciated the change.

2) His Holiness allowed the celebration of afternoon and evening Masses — a major change from previous observances.

3) In 1955 he simplified the rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal by changing the rankings of some feastdays and eliminating some octaves and vigils. He implemented into the Breviary the reforms made to the Monastic Breviary by Pope St. Pius X.

4) In 1955 Pope Pius XII approved a new Holy Week Missal that restored some of the ceremonies that had been altered over the years. He also made it easier for working people to attend the liturgy on Holy Thursday, Good Friday and the Easter Vigil by restoring the ceremonies to their original and appropriate time. From apostolic times the Catholic Church celebrated the liturgy of Holy Thursday, Good Friday and the Easter Vigil “at the same hours of the day that the sacred mysteries occurred. Thus the institution of the Holy Eucharist was recalled on Holy Thursday evening, the Passion and Crucifixion was recalled on Good Friday in the hours after noon and the Easter Vigil occurred on Holy Saturday night, ending on Easter morning with the joy of Our Lord’s resurrection.”

“During the middle ages… [the Church] began for various pertinent reasons to set an earlier time for the performance of liturgical services on those days, so that toward the end of that period all of these liturgical services had been transferred to the morning. This did not take place without detriment to the liturgical meaning and confusion between the Gospel narratives and the liturgical ceremonies attached to them” (Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, pp. 1-2, November 16, 1955.)

The solemn liturgical services of Holy Thursday, Good Friday and the Easter Vigil were held in the morning in nearly empty churches because few could attend. Schoolboys replaced men for Holy Thursday’s liturgical footwashing ceremony because laymen were compelled to work. Due to Pope Pius XlI’s restoration of Holy Week, Catholic churches are now packed and the faithful come in large numbers to assist at the liturgy and receive Holy Communion.

In 1951 Pope Pius XII restored the Easter Vigil to the late evening, its proper time :

“For centuries the Church has known the incongruity of celebrating the Easter Vigil — a service whose texts [e.g., the alleluias] and symbolism [e.g., the Lumen Christi] obviously call for the night hours — at a very early hour in the morning of Holy Saturday when Christ certainly had not yet arisen. That this was not always so is proved beyond doubt by historical documents” (John Miller, C.S.C., “The History and Spirit of Holy Week,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, p. 235).

Pope Pius XII reduced the number of lessons recited from twelve to four, reverting to the practice of St. Gregory the Great. The Pope ordained that the Lenten fast conclude at midnight on Holy Saturday instead of noon in order to complete the 40 day fast, rather than 39 days’ fast. This disciplinary law ensures that Holy Saturday retains its mournful character at the death of our Redeemer Who lay in the Holy Sepulcher.

5) In 1954 Pope Pius XII revised the Divine Office, omitting several prayers, such as the Our Father, Hail Mary and Creed before the hours, the preces at Lauds and Vespers with some exceptions, the lengthy Athanasian Creed, except for Trinity Sunday, etc. According to the Sacred Congregation of Rites, the main purpose of these modifications was “to reduce the great complexity of the rubrics to simpler form.”

Pope St. Pius X had already introduced some of these changes into the Monastic Breviary. Through the influence of the Benedictines, Pope Pius XII extended them to all the clergy. By simplifying the rubrics and shortening the prayers, it became easier for priests to faithfully and devoutly fulfill their obligation of daily recitation of the Divine Office. The clergy welcomed these wise changes.

Pope Pius XII officially approved and promulgated these changes. Bugnini had no authority to promulgate anything. To refer to the Restored Ordo of Holy Week as Bugnini’s liturgy is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Whatever part he may have had does not obscure the fact that numerous orthodox cardinals and liturgists were involved in preparing these changes.

The Sacred Congregation of Rites was established to direct the liturgy of the Latin Church. By the Latin Church is meant that section of the Catholic Church, by far the largest, that uses Latin in its ceremonies. Pope Pius XII established a commission “to examine the question of restoring the Ordo of Holy Week and propose a solution. After obtaining that answer, His Holiness decreed, as the seriousness of the affair demanded, that the entire question be subjected to a special examination by the Cardinals of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.”

[When the Cardinals gathered at the Vatican in the 1950’s,] “they considered the affair thoroughly and voted unanimously that the restored Ordo of Holy Week be approved and prescribed, subject to the approval of the Holy Father. After all this had been reported in detail to the Holy Father by the… Cardinal Prefect, His Holiness deigned to approve what the Cardinals had decided. Hence, by special mandate of the same Pope Pius XII, the Sacred Congregation of Rites has decreed the following… [giving specific directions, including:] Those who follow the Roman rite are bound… to follow the Restored Ordo for Holy Week, set forth in the official Vatican edition” (Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, pp. 1-2, November 16, 1955.)

According to Pope Pius XII, the liturgical reforms he enacted were “a sign of the providential dispositions of God for the present time of the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church” (The Assisi Papers, Proceedings of the First International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Assisi-Rome, September 18-22, 1956, p. 224.) Christ said to St. Peter and his lawful successors, “He who hears you, hears Me” (Luke 10: 16). The matter at stake is obedience to the supreme legitimate authority of the Catholic Church. A true pope approved these changes. We must accept these changes as lawful and binding unless we can prove that Pope Pius XII was not a true Pope.

The claim that Pope Pius XII did not approve the Restored Holy Week is without foundation. It is ridiculous to claim that Pope Pius XII had no idea what the Sacred Congregation of Rites and the whole Catholic world were doing regarding Holy Week. Isn’t that the same argument some use to defend the postconciliar “popes” - that since the death of Pope Pius XII, the “Vicars of Christ” have had no idea what has been going on in the Catholic Church? The claim that he was senile or in any way incapable of ruling the Church is also completely absurd in the light of his later encyclicals, addresses and speeches, up to the year of his death.

Pope Pius VI stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, conducive to superstition and materialism” (D. 1578). In Session 22, canon 7, the Council of Trent condemns anyone who says that the ceremonies of the Church are a stimulus to impiety rather than to piety.

The changes introduced by Pope Pius XII are lawful, holy and conducive to the sanctification and salvation of souls. The Catholic Church has consistently taught that a valid Pope cannot promulgate a liturgical ceremony or law that is harmful to faith and piety or displeasing to God. In such decisions the Pope is protected by infallibility.

Theologians teach that universal disciplinary laws and liturgical changes are secondary objects of infallibility. This is clearly explained by Monsignor Van Noort: “The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credenda (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith and morals” (Christ’s Church, p. 116).

The liturgical changes of Pope Pius XII — the institution of the feastday of St. Joseph the Workman, the restoration of Holy Week, the fasting laws before Holy Communion, etc. — are not sinful. If anyone should say that they are heretical or sinful, he would be accusing the infallible teaching authority of the Church of sacrilegious practices and doctrinal errors that corrupt the faith, compromise its doctrines and harm souls. Such an accusation would be a denial that Christ protects His Church and its sacred liturgy from evil and error.

Pope Pius XII forbade, in most precise language, priests from using the previous liturgy any longer. He also condemned antiquarianism, the practice of returning to earlier liturgical practices not in conformity with current rubrics and ecclesiastical laws, for such a reversal would imply that the Holy Ghost does not actively guide the Church. Older is not always better, especially when in defiance to the orders of a true Pope.

Our motive for following the liturgical changes of Pope Pius XII is the infallible teaching authority of the Church. The changes were authorized by an infallible Vicar of Christ and were officially promulgated to replace previously existing rites and laws. Since Pope Pius XII was a true pope, we must obey his commands regarding the sacred liturgy. Obedience is the safest, most consistent and orthodox course.

On the other hand, those who accept Pius XII as a true Pope while refusing to accept his liturgical decrees, demonstrate defiance and disobedience. By picking and choosing what they will accept, they set themselves up as the supreme authority of the Catholic Church. They claim the right to judge the Pope, sift what he teaches and decide what they will obey and what they will reject. It is wrong to pick and choose what to obey and what to discard. It is a mark of rebellion to refuse obedience to a true Vicar of Christ; rebellion in matters of obedience to legitimate authority is always a danger to the Faith.

Gallicanism was a heresy adverse to papal jurisdiction, tending to limit the power of the Pope. It began in the early 15th century and spread throughout Europe. As a result, many Europeans lost their sense of obedience to the Pope. In 1682 the French clergy formulated the Four Articles that became obligatory for all schools and teachers of theology. The fourth article stated that papal judgment lacks value without the consent of the Church. Pope Alexander VIII, Pope Pius VI and the Vatican Council condemned Gallicanism. Sadly, the spirit of Gallicanism is prevalent today.

Those who reject the liturgical changes of Pope Pius XII are inconsistent. If they accept Pius XII as Pope, they must reserve their opinions about his liturgy, put aside their liturgical likes and dislikes and simply obey him. The Catholic mentality is obedience to lawful superiors in all matters except sin.

The spirit of obedience to legitimate authority was expressed by the mother of Lucia, one of the Fatima children. When Lucia’s mother was asked why the new pastor did not allow dancing and the old one did, she answered: “I don’t know why the old one allowed it and now the new one doesn’t. If the new pastor does not want dancing, my children will not dance.”

I will conclude with an address of Pope St. Pius X to the priests of the Apostolic Union :

“When one loves the Pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation. When one loves the Pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce [by a living voice], but also by letters and other public documents ; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext — easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey — that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage ; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will ; one does not oppose to the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the Pope. Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the Pope” (AAS 1912, p. 695).

We must remember that all this is contingent upon a legitimate and validly elected Pope; this doesn’t apply to a heretical or invalidly elected Pope — a false Pope. » by Rev. Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI

Originally published in The Reign of Mary, Issue No. 161

2LikeShare

john333

May 14

Fr. Hesse: Freemasonic infiltration in the Vatican, Secretary of State, Opus Dei (Remastered Audio)
Papal history is like St Peter when our Lord said get behind me Satan your thinking like man not God

Father Karl A Claver

May 14

But they are not infallible.

Hélène33

May 16

???
Only the Pope is infallible, based on the Revelation of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
« The Gospel tells us that the Lord prayed for Peter, when He said at the time of His Passion: “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail ; now is your turn, confirm your brothers”. By this He was clearly insinuating that Peter's successors would NOT FOR A SINGLE INSTANT deviate from the Catholic Faith, but rather that they would bring others back to it, that they would strengthen wavering spirits ; and by thus granting him the power to confirm his brethren, He imposed on them the obligation to obey Peter”. (Pope Saint Gregory VII, in Ad Patriarcham Constantinopolitanum).

V.R.S.

May 14

"The changes introduced by Pope Pius XII are lawful, holy and conducive to the sanctification and salvation of souls."
--
It is an opinion of a theologian. There are also other opinions i.e. that they were not lawful as they went too far and materially interferred into the immemorial, ancient liturgical usage of the holy Roman Church.
Moreover, the argumentation of Fr. Radecki is rather weak e.g.:
"The changes were authorized by an infallible Vicar of Christ"
whereas such changes do not engage papal infallibility (cf. definition of papal infallibility by the Vatican Council)

"We must accept these changes as lawful and binding unless we can prove that Pope Pius XII was not a true Pope."
---
That is not true. The question of legitimate Pope is irrelevant here - the Pope is not a "tsar" / omnipotent tyrant and is not entitled to do whatever he fancies, in particular in the field of the Divine worship. Cf. for comparision Quo primum tempore of Pope Pius V showing reverence for old liturgical rites/customs.

"If they accept Pius XII as Pope, they must reserve their opinions about his liturgy, put aside their liturgical likes and dislikes and simply obey him. "
---
No, they do not need to. It is enough for them to refer to the ancient usage/custom of the Latin Church. They can demand from any Pope to respect it.
Such a position like above led to the disaster of obedience regarding Novus Ordo.

Hélène33

May 14edited

Your arguments are false, because the Pope is infallible when governing the Church of God. He is guided by the Holy Ghost when he condemns or approves a liturgy, and therefore we must not pass judgment on him.

“It is absolutely certain that the judgment of the Apostolic See, which is the highest authority, is irreformable for everyone, and no one is allowed to judge its judgement. For this reason, the Holy Canons have decreed that from every part of the universe, we appeal to his tribunal, and that it is never permitted to appeal against his sentence.(Pope Saint Nicholas I, Ad imperatorem).

“Indeed, venerable brothers and beloved sons, it is a question of granting or refusing obedience to the Apostolic See ; it is a question of recognizing his Supreme Authority even over your Churches, and not only as regards Faith, but also as regards discipline : he who denies it is a heretic ; he who recognizes it and stubbornly refuses to obey it is worthy of anathema”. (Pope Pius IX, encyclical Quae in patriarchatu, September 1, 1876).

Your last argument is also false. For the Novus Ordo is a complete break with the Catholic Church. It's a counter-church.

“The Church is also infallible with regard to divine worship and general discipline, because divine worship and general discipline are always with faith and morals. If the Church could prescribe or approve matters contrary to faith and morals, or which did not conform to them, she would inevitably throw souls into error and lose them instead of saving them. But this cannot be, as Jesus Christ promised her to be with her until the end of time. The Church is therefore infallible in matters of general discipline, in the sense that what she orders or generally approves in this matter cannot fail to be in harmony with revealed truth and morality. (H. E. Cardinal Dechamps, L'infaillibilité et le concile général, Malines, 1869, pp. 46-47).

“The Church is infallible in its general discipline. By general discipline, we mean the laws and practices that belong to the external order of the whole Church. These are those that concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments...”. (P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, 4th edition, Rome: Della Pace, 1908, vol. 1, p. 258.)

“The Church is also rightly bound to be infallible in its disciplinary decrees. By disciplinary decree, we mean everything that concerns the direction of the Church, insofar as it differs from the magisterium of the Church. We are therefore referring here ecclesiastical laws that the Church has established for the universal Church in order to regulate divine worship or to direct the Christian life”. (A. Dorsch, Institutiones Theologiæ Fundamentalis, Innsbruck: Rauch 1928, 2:409.)

V.R.S.

May 14edited

@Hélène33
"He is guided by the Holy Ghost when he condemns or approves a liturgy, and therefore we must not pass judgment on him."
----
He has no right to condemn the Catholic liturgy. If he behaves in such a way it is a clear sign he is not using the Holy Ghost assistance but is moved by his own whims.
We do not pass judgment on him, only consider lawful disobedience/opposition in case of the given abuse of his authority.
As for Pius XII changes, as far as I know, theologians who reject them give as reasons e.g. their transitory character/lack of stability, a harmful character that became evident with the NO introduction.

"“It is absolutely certain that the judgment of the Apostolic See, which is the highest authority, is irreformable for everyone, and no one is allowed to judge its judgement. For this reason, the Holy Canons have decreed that from every part of the universe, we appeal to his tribunal, and that it is never permitted to appeal against his sentence.(Pope Saint Nicholas I, Ad imperatorem)."
---
Oh, there are some things above the pope, "judging" his decisions: the deposit of Faith, the perennial doctrine of the Church, so-called Status Ecclesiae.
They are judging also above-mentioned pope Nicholas I who made a serious error regarding the Baptism formula.
If, as you say, we were not allowed to reject it and disobey the pope, we would have to accept the major error contrary to the Church teaching. In a word: we would have to accept tyranny. This is not how the Church works. The Church is not a totalitarian state with the pope as her dictator whose whims are her law. The pope authority is primary, supreme but has its limits.
Moreover, here - it is not a question of the judgement of the pope but the ancient lex orandi - law/usage of the Divine Worship. The faithful may reasonably require from the Pope to protect it, not to abolish it. An attempt by the pope to abolish the ancient liturgical usage accepted by the Church throughout the centuries is not lawful.

"The Church is also rightly bound to be infallible in its disciplinary decrees"
---
It is nonsensical hyperpapalism. Disciplinary decrees are not infallible. For example, Pope Clement XIII dissolved the Society of Jesus. Pope Pius VII reinstated it. Which decree of the above was infallible? None.

Joseph-Marie

May 17edited

@V.R.S.! I read your comments on this post, but it's sad to see how much they lack doctrinal veracity, since they're principally contained in the realm of opinionism. And thus, your personal opinions without magisterial references have no value in this subject. On the other hand, the words of Our Lord in the Holy Magisterium of the Roman Church are very clear:

“Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (S. Mark 16, 15-16)

“He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.” (S. Luke 10, 16)

“And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” (S. Matth. 18, 17)

Perfect Obedience to the Church's Magisterium is the foundation of the Catholic Faith: without integral Catholic Faith we cannot please God and enter Heaven (Hebr. 11, 6).

“Faith is a supernatural virtue, which God infuses into our souls, and by which, relying on the authority of God Himself, we believe everything which He has revealed and which through His Church He proposes for our belief.” (Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X)

"We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom He had already said: "Thou shalt be called Cephas," (John I, 42) that the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," addressed these solemn words, "Blessed art thou, Simon, Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but My Father, who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."(Matthew XVI, 16-19) And it was upon Simon alone that JESUS after His Resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and RULER over all His fold in the words, "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep." (John XXI, 15-17) At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by CHRIST the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter in his simple person preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by CHRIST with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister. If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord JESUS-CHRIST a primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema.

"Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sacred Writings, and adhering to the plain and express decrees both of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, and of the General Councils, We renew the definition of the Oecumenical Council of Florence, by which all the faithful of CHRIST must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true Vicar of CHRIST, and Head of the whole Church, and Father and teacher of all Christians; and that FULL POWER was given to him in Blessed Peter, by JESUS-CHRIST our Lord, to RULE, FEED and GOVERN the universal Church: as is also contained in the Acts of the Oecumenical Councils and in the Sacred Canons.

"Hence We teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by THEIR DUTY of hierarchical subordination and TRUE OBEDIENCE, TO SUBMIT, NOT ONLY in matters which belong to FAITH AND MORALS, but also in those that appertain to the DISCIPLINE AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH throughout the world; so that the Church of CHRIST may be one flock under one supreme Pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman Pontiff. THIS IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC TRUTH, FROM WHICH NO ONE CAN DEVIATE WITHOUT LOSS OF FAITH AND OF SALVATION.

". . . If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office MERELY of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those things which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not ALL the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the pastors of the faithful; let him be anathema.

"Moreover, that by the very apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, holds over the universal Church, the SUPREME POWER OF THE MAGISTERIUM IS ALSO COMPREHENDED, this Holy See has always held, the whole experience of the Church approves, and the Ecumenical Councils themselves, especially those in which the East convened with the West in a union of faith and charity, have declared. For the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, adhering to the ways of the former ones, published this solemn profession: "Our first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith [...]. And since the sentiment of our Lord JESUS-CHRIST cannot be passed over when He says: 'Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church' [Matt. 16, 18], these words which were spoken are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has ALWAYS been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated. Desiring, then, least of all to be separated from the faith and teaching of this [Apostolic See], We hope that We may deserve to be in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the solidarity of the Christian religion is whole and true" (Hrd V 778 f.) [cf. n. 171 f.]. Moreover, with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, the Greeks have professed, "that the Holy Roman Church holds the highest and the full primacy and pre-eminence over the universal Catholic Church, which it truthfully and humbly professes it has received with plenitude of power from the Lord Himself in blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles, of whom the Roman Pontiff is the successor; and, just as it is bound above others to defend the truth of faith, so, too, if any questions arise about faith, they should be defined by its judgment" [cf. n. 466]. Finally, the Council of Florence has defined: "That the Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to it in the blessed Peter has been handed down by the Lord JESUS-CHRIST the full power of feeding, ruling, and guiding the universal Church".

"To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors ALWAYS gave tireless attention that the saving doctrine of CHRIST be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with EQUAL CARE they watched that, wherever it was received, it was PRESERVED sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure (Cf. Saint Bernard, "Letter (190) to Innocent II" [ML 182, 1053 D]). The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling Ecumenical Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God's help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. For, the HOLY GHOST was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His Revelation they might disclose NEW DOCTRINE, BUT that by His help they might GUARD SACREDLY the Revelation transmitted through the apostles and the Deposit of Faith, and might FAITHFULLY SET IT FORTH. Indeed, ALL the venerable Fathers have embraced their Apostolic Doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the SEE OF SAINT PETER ALWAYS REMAINS UNIMPAIRED BY ANY ERROR, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" [Luke 22:32]." (Ecumenical Vatican Council, 1870, "PASTOR AETERNUS - Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ", Chapter 2. "The Perpetuity of the Primacy of Blessed Peter among the Roman Pontiffs", Session IV, July 18, 1870, Denzinger 1832-1837, 1957 edition, pp. 455-456.)

"Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmas of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church." (HH Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta Cura, 8 December 1864)

"Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers."

". . . It happens far otherwise with Christians; they receive their rule of faith from the Church, by whose authority and under whose guidance they are conscious that they have beyond question attained to truth. Consequently, as the Church is one, because Jesus Christ is one, so throughout the whole Christian world there is, and ought to be, but one doctrine: "One Lord, one faith;" "but having the same spirit of faith," they possess the saving principle whence proceed spontaneously one and the same will in all, and one and the same tenor of action.

"Now, as the Apostle Paul urges, this unanimity [in obedience] ought to be perfect. Christian faith reposes not on human but on divine authority, for what God has revealed "we believe not on account of the intrinsic evidence of the truth perceived by the natural light of our reason, but on account of the authority of God revealing, who cannot be deceived nor Himself deceive." It follows as a consequence that whatever things are manifestly revealed by God we must receive with a similar and equal assent. To refuse to believe any one of them is equivalent to rejecting them all, for those at once destroy the very groundwork of faith who deny that God has spoken to men, or who bring into doubt His infinite truth and wisdom.

"To determine, however, which are the doctrines divinely revealed belongs to the teaching Church, to whom God has entrusted the safekeeping and interpretation of His utterances. But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, COMPLETE SUBMISSION and OBEDIENCE of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect, because it is enjoined by faith itself, and has this in common with faith, that it cannot be given in shreds; nay, were it not absolute and perfect in every particular, it might wear the name of obedience, but its essence would disappear. Christian usage attaches such value to this perfection of obedience that it has been, and will ever be, accounted the distinguishing mark by which we are able to recognize Catholics.

"Admirably does the following passage from St. Thomas Aquinas set before us the right view: "The formal object of faith is primary truth, as it is shown forth in the Holy Scriptures, and in the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the fountainhead of truth. It follows, therefore, that he who does not adhere, as to an infallible divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the primary truth manifested in the Holy Scriptures, possesses not the habit of faith; but matters of faith he holds otherwise than true faith. Now, it is evident that he who clings to the doctrines of the Church as to an infallible rule yields his assent to EVERYTHING the Church teaches; but otherwise, if with reference to what the Church teaches he holds what he likes but does not hold what he does not like, he adheres not to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will."

""The faith of the whole Church should be one, according to the precept (1 Cor. 1:10): "Let all speak the same thing, and let there be no schisms among you"; and this cannot be observed save on condition that questions which arise touching faith should be determined by him who presides over the whole Church, whose sentence must consequently be accepted without wavering. And hence to the sole authority of the supreme Pontiff does it pertain to publish a new revision of the symbol, as also to decree all other matters that concern the universal Church."

"In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must NOT be supposed that it is ONLY to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common (ordinary) and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed "with Catholic and divine faith." BUT this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be RULED and DIRECTED by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See. And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live." (HH the Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, 10 January 1890)

“If anyone scorns or condemns dogmas, mandates, interdicts, sanctions or decrees, promulgated by the incumbent of the Apostolic See, for the Catholic faith, for the ecclesiastical discipline, for the correction of the faithful, for the emendation of criminals, either by an interdict of threatening or of future ills, let him be anathema.” (St. Nicholas I, Roman Council, 860 and 863; Denz. 326)

Canon 1257:

“It belongs only TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE to order sacred liturgy and to approve liturgical books.” (Code of Canon Law, 1917)

Therefore, it is a revealed catholic Doctrine and not human opinionism that all Catholics owe complete submission and perfect obedience to the infallible and holy Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in matters of discipline and government of the Church. And as the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus declares, THIS IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC TRUTH, FROM WHICH NO ONE CAN DEVIATE WITHOUT LOSS OF FAITH AND OF SALVATION.

To be continued, God willing ...

V.R.S.

May 17edited

@@Joseph-Marie

"I read your comments on this post, but it's sad to see how much they lack doctrinal veracity, since they're principally contained in the realm of opinionism. And thus, your personal opinions without magisterial references have no value in this subject."
----
Yes, I presented one of opinions of theologians in the given question i.e. of those who still use pre-1950 rite.
You also presented your personal opinion that the copy-paste wall your made (in an unreadable form BTW), starting from the first quote, refers to the subject.
However, the question is: are changes made by Pius XII to the ancient Roman Rite regarding Holy Week rites, because of their: a) extent (i.e. the scope of the interference into the rite Pius XII received from the Church), b) character (i.e. a provisional character as the experimental beginning of the Bugnini's enterprise leading ultimately to the completely new rite of G.B. Montini), c) results (i.e. preparation of the faithful for further so-called "reforms") and with relation to the perennial privilege of Quo primum tempore - binding or not? And it is subject to discussions of theologians. Some say: yes, some say: no.

We are not talking here whether a pope is the pope or whether he has or does not have primacy and jurisdiction. He is and he has.
And kindly read what papal infallibility refers to. The same Vatican Council you quote above has defined it. In particular, it does not refer to cutting out ancient prayers in the name of the temporary liturgical experiment.