Hi everyone, long time no post here. Just thought I'd share this great article with others at this forum...

Is Quo Primum still binding? By Raymond Taouk

Quo Primum is a solemn papal decree binding on the Church "in perpetuity" and condemning any whom would depart from it, as the pope indicated.

First, in issuing the solemn decree, the pope is carrying out the decrees of a dogmatic council. Second, the Mass contains much essential doctrine (remember: lex orandi legem credendi statuit). Third, the Traditional Roman Rite of Mass is not an exceptional rite, but the universal rite of the Church, being the rite of the See of Rome. The pope was simply restating the 16-century Sacred Tradition of the Church in this case.

At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. Thus it can be said that the refusal of the new liturgy and adherence to the Traditional Mass, the suspension and any canonical pain are invalid in virtue of the Bull Quo Primum of St Pius V which give to all priest the perpetual right to celebrate the Mass of "St Pius V" and declares null and void any censures against a priest who celebrates this Mass". Further St. Puis V would not have made us of the severe condemnatory language that is used in Quo Primum if he were making some minor editions but rather it is because he was binding for all eternity the Mass of the Roman rite.

We must not wrongly think that Pope Pius V was "binding" something new. He was simply acknowledging that he was bound, as all popes are, by the Sacred Tradition of the Church. The fallacy that may be made is the "Tridentine Mass" idea. There is no essentially "Tridentine Mass." What is being talked about is the Latin (Roman) Mass of Sacred Tradition, as it was said at the Roman See, in essence from the beginning, but basically in the form we know it since at least the 6th century, and in most parts even earlier. Pope St. Pius V, was not introducing a new Mass; he was canonizing the Roman Mass which has been handed down to us from the Apostles. To further confirm this venerable Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) himself said in response to a request that he add the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass, "I am only the pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?"

Lets us not forget that when Pius V wrote "in perpetuum," he knew exactly what he meant by those words:

"By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum can never be revoked or modified, St. Pius V infallibly defined that Quo Primum is of itself irreformable. --Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, 1997).

Further is the fact that this issue can be compare with the Gelasian decree in which the fourth century Pope attempted to name for all time which books constituted scripture and which did not. Was he attempting to bind all his successors to the same set of Biblical books? (Of course he was!) Could a later pope validly change that list by adding new books to scripture, or deleting any long accepted New Testament writings? (Of course not!)

The unification of scripture at that point so very clearly resembles the unification of the Liturgy under Pius V. Prior to that point there was some amount of local variation between various dioceses and even parishes and so certainly , if the pope and council (of Trent) would not permit even local variations from the Roman Rite and wished to make it uniform, they would not countenance a whole NEW rite, such as the Novus Ordo . In the case of Scripture, you had a number of congregations, which used the Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation to Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, and even the letters of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Pope Clement I. There were even some outright forgeries, such as the Revelation to Paul, the Acts of Andrew, or the Gospel of James which were also beginning to receive some recognition. On the other hand, some Christian communities still had their doubts about the Revelation to John, the letters of Peter, John, and Jude, and the letter to the Hebrews. The Gelasian decree settled on the exact list of scripture as we have it today. Likewise, there were a number of local variations in the Liturgy, resulting from some prayer or rubric being introduced here, but not there, or being omitted or changed there, but not here, and worst of all, some priests, for fear for their lives, were beginning to Protestantize their Liturgy so as to avoid any trouble by deleting out prayers and rubrics on their own initiative. Quo Primum merely did what the Gelasian decree had done.

Thus, 'Quo Primum' in not merely an ecclesiatical (human) law, because the rite of Mass codified in the Tridentine Missal is the "received and approved rite of the Roman Church" that has been "handed down by the Holy Roman Church." The status of Quo Primum, therefore, pertains to Divine Law in-as-much as it codifies what is contained in Sacred Tradition. For this reason, it has the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, indirectly, as it touches on the Church's teachings on the Sacrifice of the Mass and Real Prescene protecting them from the innovations of heretics. Therefore, no pope can ever licitly abrogate 'Quo Primum Tempore' *without* betraying the Deposit of Faith. Pope Paul VI, in introducing the Novus Ordo Missae, did not even attempt to abrogate Quo Primum, Pope John Paul II has also recognized this fact (Latin Mass Magazine, May 5,1995).

The canonic principle is that laws are interpreted by the legislator (here the pope) and in accord with their proper meaning considered in their text and context (Canon 16.1, 17 [1983]). The strict censures imposed by the pope, even including excommunication upon printers who introduce defects and errors into their printings of the Roman Missal, leave no doubt that the pope considered the force of the bull perpetual and most grave.

What about those who appeal to Second Vatican ecumenical Council?

Vatican I affirms the following:

"And since, by the divine right of Apostolic primacy, one Roman pontiff is placed over the universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes the decision of which belongs to the Church recourse may be had to his tribunal, but that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review his judgment. Wherefore they err from the right path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman pontiff.

Thus such an appeal from the faithful Popes such as Pope Paul III, Julius III, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, to an "ecumenical council," Vatican II, as to an authority greater than the Popes is clearly in violation of Vatican I and places such people under its harsh condemnation.

One might argue however that there was an old Roman Rite, which was different from our Tridentine Mass. The Tridentine Mass was a development resulting from a mixing of the Roman Rite with the Gallican Rite at the time of Charlemagne (and the Mass wasn't even said in Latin that long ago)."

This however only meant that, there were a few Gallican prayers assimilated through Milan (remembering that the great St. Ambrose of the 4th century was the Archbishop of Milan), but the rite was essentially as we know it. The Roman Mass dates back from Apostolic times; specifically from the time of Sts. Peter & Paul in Rome.

Latin was most probably used in early times as traditionally, Sts. Peter and Paul founded the Roman Rite when they were in Rome before their martyrdom. Excavations at Pompeii, which was preserved in situ when Vesuvius erupted in A.D. 79, show evidence that the Christian liturgy was already being celebrated in Latin in Italy. Roman citizens would not be likely to take kindly to the use of the (Greek) language of a conquered people (the Romans having conquered Greece two centuries before the Christian era). Latin Mass itself as it did not did NOT change drastically up to1500 as some may say. It changed very little since Pope St. Gregory the Great (ca. 600), and relatively little for at least three centuries before that.

However, the Novus Ordo has changed the Mass completely. The changes go far beyond the use of the vernacular. The actual form of the Consecration has been changed. The Canon of the Mass, which according to the council of Trent cannot be removed, has been destroyed...

One of the Key points in the Catholic bishops vindication of Apostolicae Curae (on the Invalidity of Anglican Orders) is "that in earlier times local Churches were permitted to add new prayers and ceremonies is acknowledged . . . But that they were also permitted to subtract prayers and ceremonies in previous use, and even to remodel the existing rites in a most drastic manner, is a proposition for which we know of no historical foundation, and which appears to us as absolutely incredible" - A Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae (London, 1898), pp.42-43.

Herbert E. Hall in his book (which has both an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat), Catholic and Roman, published in 1918 (Pg.83) wrote: "If there were no break with the past at the reformation, why were there the new liturgy and ordinal? And why the pulling down of altars, the desecration of shrines, the destruction of monsteries and the uprooting of religious life, and the general undoing of all those things and practices which advanced High Churchmen devote their lives so zealously to bring back?"

In addition to Quo Primum, two other documents have traditionally been printed at the front of every approved Roman Missal: Pope Clement VIII's Cum Sanctissimum (1604) and Pope Urban VIII's Si Quid Est (1634). Although both of these papal bulls renew the censure of excommunication imposed by Pope St. Pius V, neither of them contains this most grave imprecation.

The Mass is not simply an ecclesiastical law, a matter of discipline for the Latin (Western) Church, as even laymen are familiar with the principle enunciated by Pope St. Celestine I to the bishops of Gaul (422): "Legem credendi, lex statuit supplicandi" [the law of praying has established the law of believing], often shortened to "Lex orandi, lex credendi" [the law of praying (is) the law of believing]. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology, not the other way around. The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the faith is taught in the text of the Mass. The notion that one pope can "overrule" his predecessors in such a matter is in implicit denial of the credal dogma that the Church is Apostolic.

The traditional Roman Mass in all its essentials was passed on by St. Peter, the first pope, to the Church, was according to St. Ambrose elaborated by the Apostles themselves, and reached its complete perfection with Popes St. Damasus (fourth century) and St. Gregory the Great (sixth century). As the great liturgical scholar Fr. Adrian Fortescue wrote, this Mass is "the most venerable in all Christendom, with a history of unbroken use far longer than that of any Eastern rite, there being no doubt that the essential parts of the Mass are of Apostolic origin."

Thus, the Mass that Pope St. Pius V was confirming in Quo Primum was not some new construct like the Novus Ordo Missae, but was essentially the Apostolic Mass of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome. Nor is it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern rites, but it is the universal rite of the Church, the rite of the Roman See.

We also note that according to the Canon Law now in force that a custom which is centuries old or exists from time immemorial may be considered abrogated only when such an abrogation is explicitly declared. This is stated in Canon 30. Now no document of the New mass has ever explicitly revoked the Latin Mass (not that it could be done anyhow in view of Quo primum without a serious departure from the Catholic faith).

For those who mistakenly believe that there is no essential change between the Mass as codified by St. Pius V and the New Mass, the famous Liturgist Fr. Joseph Gelineau S.J makes it clear that " The Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed. 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" - Pope Paul's New Mass, p.78, Demain La Liturgie, Paris, 1977, p.10

According to the common opinion of Catholic theologians throughout the centuries, any pope who "wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition would become a schismatic, not to be obeyed". --Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), S.J., "Most Exalted and Pius Doctor," De Charitate, Disputatio XII de Schismate, sectio 1

Further "the Pope could, without doubt, fall into Schism . . . Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. . . . Thus it is that Innocent states (De Consuetudine) that, it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed . . ." - Cardinal Juan de Torqumada O.P; Commentarii in Decretum Gratiani (1519) and Summa de Ecclesia (1489).

"The way we worship is the way we believe" (lex orandis, lex credendi) -- Pope St Pius V

-- Robert (robertp234@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003

Answers

Robert, Of course Quo Primum is still binding, but like all the other dogmatic decrees, encyclicals, etc, prior to Vatican II, it has gone into the Vatican garbage can. Only decrees after 1962 have binding force.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 18, 2003.

How about reading the old threads before posting on the same thing for the 1000th time? Jake, Isabel, what did you do, put out a call to action at your local schismatic parish? Sheesh.

Quo Primum never says the Magesterium cannot replace the rite of mass.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 18, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Robert P.
I wish that I could say, "Welcome back," but I see that you have decided to persist in your schismatic, ex-Catholic existence. [Moderator, this is the poor former Catholic who was led out of the Church through the deception of "Emerald" several months ago. That alone is reason enough to ban "Emerald."]

Robert P, you got the wrong answer from Terry. [Giving wrong answers seems to be a habit of his.]

The fact, as I think you know, and as has been stated on the forum MANY times before, is that "Quo primum" is no longer binding in its fullness. That is to say, "Quo primum" lacks the force to command Latin/Western-Church Catholics priests of our time to celebrate Mass according to the rite promulgated by St. Pope Pius V.

The document "Quo primum" is not doctrinal (teaching) but disciplinary. As such, it remained in effect only so long as succeeding popes chose to maintain its binding nature (either explicitly or implicitly). It is impossible for one pope to bind future popes with a disciplinary decree. [I have no doubt that St. Pius knew this. But if I am wrong, and he actually thought he could bind future popes, he simply made a mistake.] Pope Paul VI (at least implicitly) revoked the binding nature of "Quo primum" by promulgating a new Missal, with a modified rite of the Mass, in 1969. [Note, however, that I am not saying that the "Mass of Pius V" became invalid or that its celebration was totally forbidden by this revocation. That is why I said, above, that "Quo primum" is "no longer binding in its fullness."]

I am not going to analyze the article that you quoted, because the author is a schismatic who has included so many errors that it would take me hours to refute them all (and I don't have such time to waste).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

Jake, Isabel, what did you do, put out a call to action at your local schismatic parish? Sheesh.

You see, the funny thing is, we (traditionalists) don't need to put out a call. We're kind of like Musketeers, "All for One, One for All." :)

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 18, 2003.

Yeah, yeah, the whole Legion of you responds to the call. I understand.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 18, 2003.

Wow, I don't think I've ever heard this explanation before. I'm curious.

John, you say...

The fact, as I think you know, and as has been stated on the forum MANY times before, is that "Quo primum" is no longer binding in its fullness. That is to say, "Quo primum" lacks the force to command Latin/Western-Church Catholics priests of our time to celebrate Mass according to the rite promulgated by St. Pope Pius V.

Lacks force???

John, with all due respect, how can you or anyone else possibly say with any kind of authority that Quo Primum Tempore is only "disciplinary" and not binding on all the Faithful? I really want to know the logic behind this, becuase I have studied this matter pretty thouroughly. Quo Primum is a solemn decree which was declared ex cathedra by the Pope at a dogmatic Council of Trent stating that it could never be revoked. Ex cathedra.

How could you possibly think, even for a moment, that a Saint and a Pope - St. Pius V - made a "mistake". An infallible ex Cathedra pronouncement promulgated by a Saintly Pope at a dogmatic council is a "mistake" to you??

You know, John, when someone says anything contrary to what this ex cathedra infallible Papal document promulgates, they are actually going against/betraying the Deposit of Faith. Do you realize that, John? It’s as if you were to go against the sacred Dogma (ex-cathedra) pronouncement of the Assumption of Mary.

Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, John, that Quo Primum is not an infallible ex cathedra decree that must be OBEYED by all the faithful (including the current Pope) in perpetuity. Prove to me that it is only "disciplinary" and "lacks power" to command the faithful. Do so, John, if you can, and I will happily apologize for saying that you are gravely wrong about this matter, and I will eat my words.

-- Robert (robertp234@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

There is nothing that can validly annul the Bull of St. Pius V. Paul Vi, in his Constitution, does not formally abrogate it, and if he takes the risk, together with those who embrace his reform, of incurring the wrath of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, we still have to admit that he is not obliging anyone to follow him into this peril. He does no more than to express a simple and indefinite wish, together with the hope that all may find spontaneously a common unity in the practice of the new reformed form of worship."

These wishy washy words of Paul VI, are no answer to Quo Primum What he is saying is that it would be nice of you people would give it a try.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 18, 2003.

led out of the Church through the deception of "Emerald" several months ago. That alone is reason enough to ban "Emerald."]

1. He was not "led" anywhere. He sought and he found. Deo Gratias!

2. If he was "led" anywhere, it was not "out of the Church", but back to her very bosom, out of the miserable mire of Modernism and onto the warm, dry deck of the Ark of Salvation.

through the deception of "Emerald" several months ago.

I credit the Blessed Virgin Mary for his abandonment of his rotten Novus Ordo parish. I cannot speak for Emerald, but I was honored to have been a blunt tool in Our Lady's hands by hosting Robert for a few days, accompanying him to his first ever Traditional Latin Mass and enrollment in the Brown Scapular. He was an inspiring example of zeal, not to mention that my children absolutely adored him. Doubleplusgood.

That alone is reason enough to ban "Emerald."]

If Emerald (or Robert, for that matter) has done something ban-able, i.e. broken the forum rules in any way, shape or form, then you better ban me, too. It was me, after all, who met with Robert in person, had him in my home, gave him several wonderful books to read on the subjects that were/are important to him, and brought him not once but three times to the "unapproved" (by your standards) Traditional chapel where he assisted at Mass all three times, including the High Mass of Pentecost. So if I'm banned, please state as much. If not, please clarify that fact to the others.

We await your response, Paul.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 18, 2003.

Quo Primum never says the Magesterium cannot replace the rite of mass.

Why bother quoting it over and over?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 18, 2003.

Faced with the fact that 'the entire teaching of the Church is contained in the liturgy' (Father Joseph Jungmann in Handing on the Faith), this is a most instructive piece of skulduggery. In the Latin version of the NOM the words Unus Deus or 'one God... living and true,' are to be found, and no explicit heresy is taught. However, even in the Latin, apart from the Creed, there is no clear expression of the doctrine of the Trinity. (What a striking economy of language is used in our traditional Preface!) When we come to the vernacular Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer No. 4, the mistranslation of Unus Deus by 'You alone are God' clearly departs from the traditional norm. In the absence of any other reference in this prayer to the Son or the Holy Ghost, the use of the world 'alone' is an explicit denial of the Trinity. It is for this reason that some have referred to this Eucharistic Prayer as the 'Arian Canon.' Yet another example of a return to primitive practice! Because of repeated complaints this mistranslation has been recently corrected. That an explicitly heretical formula could have been used for 18 years in the post- Conciliar Church speaks volumes about the innovators' ignorance of the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church.

This was used for 18 years. A heretical Mass. It could no longer be tolerated even by Vatican II standards. You see why Quo Primum was necessary? Can you be sure of some of the other canons?

Keep calling us heretics. Our crime? Obeying 19 centuries of teaching. OK so we're heretics.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 18, 2003.

John,

I must ask you: do you think it is "beneath you" or something to prove to me that Quo Primum was "merely disciplinary" as you claim? And not what it actually was: an ex cathedra infallible Papal decree which must be OBEYED and believed by all the Faithful for all time, under pain of excommunication. I really would like you (or someone else) to give it your best shot to prove to me that this is not the case. Why? Because it is a VERY, very serious statement/accusation that you and others are making here. The implications are very grave if you happen to be wrong about this and Quo Primum was NOT, in fact, "merely disciplinary" or a "mistake", or "lacking power to bind the faithful of today" as you say, don't you think? If I were you, John, I'd want to be extra sure I was 100% right in making such serious (and erronious) judgement calls and assertions about an infallible ex cathedra decree which was promulgated by a saintly Pope at a dogmatic council. Because, as I said earlier, if you are wrong about this (which I think you are), you are flat out contradicting the Deposit of Faith.

For starters, read this article and tell me that Quo Primum was "merely disciplinary" again. No it wasn't. It was a CLEAR infallible pronouncement that REQUIRES the assent of ALL Catholics, forever. It was and can never be abrogated. And know one (not even the current Pope) has any authority to claim otherwise. Know one - not even the current Pope - can ever lawfully prevent the Faithful from attending the Mass of Saint Pius V . It is a God-Given right; plus the Mass of TRent is the universal Rite of the Church - not the Novus Ordo. I challenge you or someone else to try to prove otherwise.

-- Robert (robertp234@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

Where the Valiant of Israel Have Fallen When one considers that Israel in the Old Testament is a prefiguration of the Catholic Church in the New, and that the Philistines, the long-time enemy of the Israelites, are a prefiguration of the enemies of the Church, it is difficult not to make the comparison to our own time.

Never was there a time when the Church was more assailed by her enemies; never have they been more successful. Never before has the Church fought such a decisive battle against her enemies.

The battle is a fierce one. The Philistines are, of course, the modernists. The Israelites are Catholics faithful to their holy Faith. Just like the Philistines who mustered a terrible force in response to their humiliation by the killing of Goliath, so the modernists have assailed the Church in our time with renewed vigor, having been humiliated under the reign of St. Pius X.

Yet the valiant of Israel — the faithful Catholics — are falling and are being slain in this fateful contest.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 20, 2003.

I've got questions about Quo Primum. They may be dumb questions, but I'd still like answers. However, I'm not even going to publicly ask them if anyone who seeks answers within her own Faith is going to be called heretic or schismatic by her brothers and sisters in Christ just for asking...

I'll remain in ignorance until I can find some charitable Catholic board who will enlighten me without assuming that I'm ready to leap off the bark of Peter.

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (flowerofthehour@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

There are several points about Quo Primum that need to be addressed:

#1: First of all, "WAS Quo Primum, in fact, abrogated?"

#2: Secondly, if so, "Is this a problem, since Pope Paul VI, who WAS a valid Pope, was the proximate cause for its abrogation?"

#3: And lastly, if #1 and #2 are in the affirmative, "What does all of this mean?"

First of all, it was determined that Quo Primum was not, in fact, abrogated by the Holy See, nor by any documents of Vatican II, nor by the Roman Curia. The Novus Ordo Mass promulgated by Paul VI was not originally intended (by Paul VI, anyway) to supplant the "Tridentine" rite, which was celebrated according to 1965 rubrics (which allowed for the vernacular) at the time of promulgation. Though most bishops basically threw the traditional Mass out the window in favor of the Novus Ordo, this was not the intent of Rome. The Novus Ordo was originally an experiment of sorts, though that in no way lessens its validity or its licity. Also, since Rome itself began using the new rite, many ofthe bishops saw this as a cue to implement it totally. Why Rome did not explicitly tell the bishops not to supplant the old rite (or old form of the rite, depending on how you look at it) is unknown to me. This is not the first time that Rome has either remained fairly or completely silent about an issue. Or, perhaps the American bishops have filtered out Rome's opinion on an issue, so that the laity is not generally aware of it. (Remember, the current Pope opposed communion in the hand, but now allows it; he still discourages it, though how many American Catholics are aware of this?) I believe that, in order to preserve unity within the Church, the Pope (at least the current one) has chosen not to be forceful in the discipline and correction of bishops in these matters.

Since #1 is in the negative, #2 and #3 are moot. However, academically, we can look at them as if #1 were in the affirmative. #2 is in the negative. "Quo Primum" says that the missal is not to be changed "under pain of Our displeasure". Despite the grave warning at the end of the bull, if "Quo Primum" was meant to be binding on future Popes, "Our displeasure" would have likely been replaced by "mortal sin", "excommunication" or the like. "Quo Primum" was absolutely undoubtedly binding during the reign of St. Pius V. And it could be called infallible, in the sense that it declared the missal of 1570 to be licit and valid. However, Paul VI was not the first Pope to introduce change. Pius XII, who several schismatic and heretical groups erroneously claim was the last "real" Pope, introduced some minor changes during his Pontificate.

Which brings us to #3. While I believe the Tridentine Rite (which, by the way, was changed several times between 1570 and 1962, though most changes were minor, and all were miniscule compared to those of the Novus Ordo) is much more beautiful and reverent than the Novus Ordo, the Novus Ordo IS valid and licit. If the Novus Ordo were discarded, and the 1962 rite (or a true "reform of the reform") were instituted, I would throw a party. However, we must not confuse our DISLIKE of the Novus Ordo with a DISBELIEF in the Novus Ordo. Most of the issues that people raise when rashly calling the N.O. "heretical" were introduced not by the Pope, but by a faulty ICEL translation into English. Just as the Pope is infallible, the N.O. (which was promulgated by a Pope), when properly understood (as is the case with Scripture), does not err. Let us pray for the return of the "old" Mass, but also let us pray for the unity of the Church, and the orthodoxy of us all.

-- David Young (davidyoung@aggienetwork.com), October 27, 2003.