Since, as has been demonstrated above, adherence to the traditional liturgy is required by the dogma of the faith, and hence, as the Popes have professed in their oath of coronation, pertains to Divine Law as divina et celestia mandata: to break with the traditional liturgy of the Church would, therefore, constitute a schismatic act. Even a pope who would “not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church” or would “change all the ecclesiastical ceremonies”, by doing so would “go against the universal customs and rites of the Church” and would cease to “be in proper communion with the Church”, and would therefore “fall into schism”.13 In obedience to the infallible teaching of the Church, Pope St. Pius V declared in Quo Primum: Let all every where adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. In the next sentence, Pope St. Pius V decreed: This ordinance applies hence forth, now, and for ever, through out all the provinces of the Christian world, to all Patriarchates, Cathedral Churches, Colleges and Parish Churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women, even of Military Orders, and Churches or Chapels with out a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all Churches ...

Furthermore, by these presents (these laws), by Apostolic Authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is here after to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgement, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor that superiors, Administrators, Canons, Chaplains, and other Secular Priests, or Religious, of whatever order or by whatever title designated, be obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us: [here St. Pius V makes it in disputably clear that these are not mere ecclesiastical laws that can be revoked, but on the contrary, they are of their very nature permanent and irreformable, and there fore the Supreme Pontiff solemnly and infallibly declares ex cathedra:] •... we like-wise [by apostolic authority] statute and declare that no one whosoever is to be forced or coerced to alter this Missal and that this present document can not ever be revoked or modified at any time, but remains always valid and retains its full force.

“What death more fatal for souls than the freedom of error!” said St. Augustine.

In the Syllabus of Pius IX, we read the solemn and infallible* condemnation of the following errors: 77. In our time, it is no longer useful that the Catholic religion be considered as the only religion of the State, to the exclu-sion of all the other cults. 78. Therefore, it is with reason that, in some Catholic coun-tries, the law has provided that the foreigners who go there enjoy the public exercise of their particular forms of worship there. 79. It is false that the civil liberty of all the cults and the full power left to all to manifest openly and publicly all their thoughts and all their opinions, throws the peoples more eas-ily into corruption of morals and of the mind, and propagates the pestilence of Indifferentism.

The human person does not possess the moral right to transgress the commandments of God, since, in issuing the commandments, God establishes a moral obligation for the human race to observe them. The first commandment sets forth the obligation to worship God according to the Catholic faith and religion,157 and therefore the refusal to observe this commandment constitutes the sin of infi-delity.158 A ‘right’ to religious liberty, there fore, does not pertain to the Deposit of Faith and is not founded on di vine revelation, but is contrary to the Faith and is heretical.159 “He who believes and is baptised shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be con-demned.” – St. Mark, 16:16.

“I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.

In 1570, Pope St. Pius V promulgated the revised and codified Roman Rite of Mass with the Bull Quo Primum. He did not promulgate a new rite, but he merely restored and codified the immemorial Roman Rite.15 The Council of Trent had no intention to institute a new liturgy. The Council of Trent (1545-1563), Michael Davies observes, did indeed appoint a commission to examine the Roman Missal, and to revise and restore it according to the custom and rite of the Holy Fathers. The new missal was eventually promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in 1570 with the Bull Quo Primum. Pope Pius V did not institute a new rite of Mass. Davies has demonstrated this, citing eminent authorities:... Father David Knowles, who was Britain's most distinguished scholar until his death in 1974, pointed out that: The Missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman Missal of 1474, which in its turn repeated in all the essentials the practice of the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent III, which itself derived from the usage of Gregory the Great and his successors of the seventh century. In short, the Missal of 1570 was, in all essentials, the usage of the main stream of medieval European liturgy which included England and all its rites.16

Although the rite continued to develop after the time of St. Gregory, Father Fortescue explains that: All later modifications were fitted into the old arrangement, and the most important parts were not touched. From, roughly, the time of St. Gregory we have the text of the Mass, in order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.17 So our Mass goes back with out essential change, to the age when it developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world ... The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unresolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.18 The Roman Rite of Mass, as Jungmann says,19 grew out of the apostolic traditions, and the Roman Canon, according to the Council of Trent, “is made up from the words of Our Lord from apostolic traditions, and from devout instructions of the holy pontiffs.”20 The Roman Rite developed in such a manner that the basic structure of the rite came to be enriched and adorned with components borrowed from the Gallican liturgy. It was truly and fully a profession of the faith of the Catholic Church because it was the product, the offspring of that faith and therefore “The entire teaching of the Church is contained in the liturgy.”21 Whence it follows, that “the law of prayer establishes the law of belief.”22 The Council Fathers of Trent never dreamed of creating a new rite of Mass, nor did the majority of Council Fathers of Vatican II:23 They knew only too well that “Liturgies are not made, they grow in the devotion of the centuries.”24

Pope Leo XIII explained in his constitution Orientalium Dignitas that the Church “allows and makes provision for some innovations in exterior forms, mostly when they are in conformity with the ancient past.” Clearly Pope Leo was referring mainly to restorations. Clearly, it is the duty of the pope to regulate the liturgy, but it does not pertain to his office to suppress it and create new liturgies. Pope Pius XI summed up what has always been the mind of the Church regarding the pope’s responsibilities towards the liturgy when he stated in Divini Cultus (1928):
No wonder then, that the Roman Pontiffs have been so solicitous to safe guard and protect the liturgy. They have used the same care in making laws for the regulation of the liturgy, in preserving it from adulteration, as they have in giving accurate expression to the dogmas of the faith.
It is the duty of the hierarchy and especially the Pope to “safeguard and protect the liturgy” as well as “preserving it from adulteration”. The Council Fathers of Vatican II expressed their intention to remain faithful to their pastoral duties regarding the liturgy, but the commission appointed by Paul VI, the Consilium, subverted the Council’s programme for legitimate liturgical revision, and brought about a new Protestant Reformation in the Church.27

A “Brand New Rite”
Pope Paul VI created the commission of bureaucrats that destroyed the Roman liturgy when he established the Consilium ad Exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia by his Motu Proprio, Sacram Liturgiam. “Thus,” says Michael Davies, “the notori ous Consilium which destroyed the Roman Rite came into being ... Father Annibale Bugnini was appointed secretary of the Consilium ... it consisted of fifty bishops and two hundred consultors or advisers — the successors of the Council periti. (Father Peter Coughlin)”28 The president of the Consilium was Cardinal Lercaro, who has been described as “Luther resurrected”.29
Bugnini himself revealed his schismatical intentions to destroy the liturgy when he stated on May 7, 1967, “It is not simply a question of restoring a valuable masterpiece, in some cases it will be necessary to provide new structures for entire rites ... it will truly be a new creation.”30 Joseph Gelineau S.J., “one of the most influential members of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium, which actually composed the New Mass”,31 spoke of the Roman liturgy saying, “Let them compare it with the Mass we now have. Not only the words, the melodies and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said with out ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le rite romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est detruit). Some walls of the former edifice have fallen while others have changed their appearance, to the extent that it appears today either as a ruin or the partial substructure of a different building.”32

It is just practice either accepted or forced on all at a specific time. The case that what came out of Trent is "Tradition" as handed on from the apostles to the early Church, is a bit tenuous at best. Either that, or wishful thinking. "Tradition" is a gift from the Holy Spirit. Missals are time specific practices that can be varying degrees of traditional, but they are not "Tradition," as such.

12.
We have thus reached one of the principal points in the Modernist's system, namely, the origin and the nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in those primitive and simple formulas, which, under a certain aspect, are necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear knowledge of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself, they apparently hold, strictly consists in the secondary formulas .

To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first find the relation which exists between the religious formulas and the religious sense. This will be readily perceived by anyone who holds that these formulas have no other purpose than to furnish the believer with a means of giving to himself an account of his faith. These formulas therefore stand midway between the believer and his faith; in their relation to the faith they are the inadequate expression of its object, and are usually called symbols; in their relation to the believer they are mere instruments.
Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
13.
Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense—with some modification when needful— should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open

disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. "Blind'- they are, and "leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself."[8]

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS (On The Doctrine Of The
Modernists)
Pope Pius X

Neither Pope Paul VI nor the Council nullified Quo Primum, and neither mandated the new rite, and therefore Quo Primum still has the force of law. Vatican II did not promulgate any new liturgical laws. It pertains to the very essence of law that “A law comes into existence when it is promulgated” (CIC 1983, c. 7), and therefore it is absurd for anyone to say that Vatican II is the basis for the authority of the New Missal or that Paul VI did not need to formally mandate the use of the New Missal in order for it to have the force of law. Davies summed up the situation well when he wrote:
The problem faced by the Vatican as a result of the widespread support for the Tridentine Mass was that it had condoned its almost universal suppression with out giving formal and binding legal sanction to this suppression; and further more, this illegal suppression has been given sup•port in documents emanating from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship.37
The traditionalists’ steadfast adherence to the Tridentine Mass has earned for them the indignity of being labelled as “schismatics” because they refuse obedience to non-existent laws:38laws which, if they did exist, would be essentially schismatic, according to the infallible teaching of the Church. “The Novus Ordo”, wrote Cardinal Ottaviani, “represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent,”39 and constitutes a “grave break with tradition”.40

Professor
J.P.M. vander Ploeg O.P., observes:
It would be an exaggeration in most cases to claim that the Protestants composed completely new liturgical rites. They tended to adapt existing Catholic rites, but removed from them every thing which was not compatible with the particular heresies they favoured.
In the above-mentioned Vindication of “Apostolicæ Curæ”, the Catholic bishops of England explained exactly how this was done:
To put the matter briefly, if the first Prayer Book of Edward VI is compared with the Missal, sixteen omissions can be detected, the evident purpose of which was to eliminate the idea of sacrifice ... even after that drastic treatment there still remained a few phrases and rubrics on which Gardiner could fasten, endeavouring to understand them as still asserting the real objective Presence and the True Sacrifice ...
With this in mind we can clearly see how the Consilium systematically mutilated the liturgy according to the same heretical pattern. The Roman Rite begins with the prayers at the foot of the altar. The priest says prayers to prepare himself to approach the altar (introibo ad altare Dei), and enter the Holy of Holies (ut ad sancta sanctorum puris mereamur mentibus introire ...)46
The explicit mention of the altar and Holy of Holies clearly implies the reality of the propitiatory sacrifice about to take place. These prayers of the Roman Rite were replaced with a new introductory rite in the Novus Ordo in which the notion of oblation has been expunged:
Fratres, agnoscamus peccata nos tra ut apti simus ad sacra mysteria celebranda.
The English translation of this formula (and the other vernacular translations) suggests even more strongly the Lutheran heresy of concelebration with the laity:
My Brothers and Sisters, to prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries, let us call to mind our sins.
Not only is the notion of the sacrifice absent from the new formula, but in the new formula the celebrants also appear to be the entire congregation; whereas in the traditional rite, it is the priest who goes up to the altar of God, and it is he who enters the Holy of Holies to offer the sacrifice of the New and Everlasting Covenant. In the Roman Rite, the congregation clearly assists while it is the priest who offers the sacrifice. In the new rite, the prayers suggest that it is the entire congregation that celebrates and the priest only presides. This is the way the Consilium intended it to appear, i.e. strictly according to the Protestant definition of the Mass as set forth in no. 7 of the Institutio Generalis.47

The suppression of the invocation to the Third Per son of the Most Holy Trinity that He may descend upon the oblations, as once be fore into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.

Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.