another should I go to _____ event:" wedding edition

[Nihil Obstat]

​That would only be the case if, say, it were an emergency or the couple getting married were sincerely unaware that the SSPX lacks faculties. 

Have you got commentaries on Canon Law that specifically discuss the nature and limitations of ecclesia supplet? 

[Dave]

Have you got commentaries on Canon Law that specifically discuss the nature and limitations of ecclesia supplet? 

​​http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=411941

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/05/again-about-validity-of-absolutions-by-sspx-priests/

 

[Nihil Obstat]

​​http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=411941

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/05/again-about-validity-of-absolutions-by-sspx-priests/

 

​I said commentaries on canon law. Not blog posts, no matter how much I respect Fr. Z. You do know what I mean by commentaries, right? I mean proper, formal ones. By canon lawyers who are experts on those areas.

[NadaTeTurbe]

Nihil Obstat, as you seems to know a little about the SSPX, I have a question. Mgr WIlliamson ordained a priest, father Faure, weeks ago, without authorization from the Vatican or from the SSPX. Does it mean he was excommunicated latae sentenciae (not sure of the latin word) ? 

[Nihil Obstat]

When Bishop Williamson consecrated a new bishop without a papal mandate, both he and the new bishop incurred excommunication latae sententiae. 

[Dave]

​I said commentaries on canon law. Not blog posts, no matter how much I respect Fr. Z. You do know what I mean by commentaries, right? I mean proper, formal ones. By canon lawyers who are experts on those areas.

​Did you not see the first link -- the one from EWTN? That one comes from EWTN's canon law Q&A forum, and Fr. Mark J. Gantley, who answered the question, is a canon lawyer.

[Nihil Obstat]

​Did you not see the first link -- the one from EWTN? That one comes from EWTN's canon law Q&A forum, and Fr. Mark J. Gantley, who answered the question, is a canon lawyer.

Again, not what I was asking for. None of those are commentaries. I know the arguments quite well. I have done my best to study both sides of the debate, and I am quite familiar with the standard points. I want professional, formal law commentaries. 

[Ark]

​Nope, sorry, SSPX priests don't have faculties for marriages (or confessions, for that matter), so marriages performed by them are invalid.

​Of course their marriages and confessions are valid. Just because they are unjustly denied regular jurisdiction because they choose to practice Roman Catholicism does not mean their sacraments are invalid. The Lord supplies. 

[Ark]

​That would only be the case if, say, it were an emergency or the couple getting married were sincerely unaware that the SSPX lacks faculties. 

We are in a state of emergency. 

Question to you, are Russian Orthodox marriages valid?

Edited May 25, 2015 by Ark

[Ark]

​It used to be the case that "for all" was what the original translation said, remember? Not a good translation, mind you, but that was the translation at the time. While the indefectibility of the Church doesn't guarantee that all translations of the Mass will be like Mary Poppins, i. e. practically perfect in every way, it does at least guarantee that the Church won't approve an invalid translation. 
Allow me to quote from the Council of Trent:
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
 

Consider that for a moment. It follows from this canon that no approved rite of Mass can be intrinsically sacrilegious, evil, invalid, etc. If the officially approved translation of "for all" were invalid, then it would make the Ordinary Form of the Mass an incentive to impiety, which that canon says is impossible. To believe otherwise (or even to willfully question is) is heretical.

Besides, the minimum stuff necessary for a valid consecration is for the priest to say, "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood," respectively -- nothing about "for many," "for all," etc.

And as for the priest's intention, it doesn't matter if he doesn't believe in transubstantiation; it suffices for him to intend to do what the Church does, even if he misunderstands it.
 

​Canon VII refers to the canonized Roman Mass (i.e. the Trdientine Mass) and not the promulgated Novus Ordo Missal of Paul VI. 

The Council of Trent furthermore forbade anyone, and that includes the Pope, from making significant alterations to the canonized Mass. Pope St Pius V also made this very clear in his famous Quo Primum. The Tridentine Mass will forever remain the canonized Mass of the Roman Rite, and in due time it will return to it's rightful place as our ordinary form of worship.

 

[Dave]

​Of course their marriages and confessions are valid. Just because they are unjustly denied regular jurisdiction because they choose to practice Roman Catholicism does not mean their sacraments are invalid. The Lord supplies. 

​They're denied regular jurisdiction because they're gravely disobedient. To support them in their disobedience is to make yourself an accessory to their sin. And the most recent Code of Canon Law disagrees with you about the validity of SSPX confessions:
 

 

Can. 966 §1 For the valid absolution of sins, it is required that, in addition to the power of order, the minister has the faculty to exercise that power in respect of the faithful to whom he gives absolution.

In a nutshell, a man must be validly ordained and must have the Church’s permission to use the power to absolve sins validly. The part about “the law itself” refers to a case of danger of death. If someone is in danger of death, even a priest who's been laicized, excommunicated, deprived of faculties, etc. validly absolves sins. SSPX priests have not been given these faculties, so the only time they could validly absolve would be when someone was in danger of death. Period. End of story.

We are in a state of emergency. 

Question to you, are Russian Orthodox marriages valid?

​What do Russian Orthodox marriages have to do with this? 

While I agree that the Church has been going through very dark times for several decades now, the Church determines what would constitute a state of emergency; it's not your place or the SSPX's place to do so: 
 

"However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree.  In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances (cf. CIC, can. 1323). As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity" (Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts).

​Canon VII refers to the canonized Roman Mass (i.e. the Trdientine Mass) and not the promulgated Novus Ordo Missal of Paul VI. 

The Council of Trent furthermore forbade anyone, and that includes the Pope, from making significant alterations to the canonized Mass. Pope St Pius V also made this very clear in his famous Quo Primum. The Tridentine Mass will forever remain the canonized Mass of the Roman Rite, and in due time it will return to it's rightful place as our ordinary form of worship.

 

​The canon I cited didn't say, "This refers only to the Tridentine Mass, not any other rites of Mass that may come afterward or any that came before." It never referred to any particular rite of the Mass at all; it only referred to the Mass. In the interest of full disclosure, I happen to strongly prefer the Extraordinary Form Mass and attend it every week. But while the Ordinary Form may be deficient in some respects, at the end of the day, the Mass is the Mass is the Mass. In fact, the ONLY position for a faithful Catholic to hold is the following, as enunciated by none other than Bishop Rifan of Campos:
 

"No one can be Catholic while remaining in an attitude of refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. In fact, the Church defines as schismatic those who refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff or to remain in communion with the other members of the Church who are his subjects (canon 751). Now, to refuse continually and explicitly to participate in every and any Mass in the rite celebrated by the Pope and by all the bishops of the Church while judging this rite, in itself, incompatible with the Faith, or sinful, represents a formal refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. 
 

"The objective fact cannot be denied that the rite of Paul VI is the official rite of the Latin Church, celebrated by the Pope and by all the Catholic episcopate. 
If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world -- that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship -- a proposition condemned by the Magisterium -- and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. A Catholic, either in theory or in practice, cannot accept these positions. 
 

"Our participation, therefore, is based on doctrinal principles. And it does not mean that we do not have reservations about the new rite, as we have already respectfully brought to the attention of the Holy See. Neither does our participation signify approval of everything that may happen. To be united to the hierarchy of the Church and in perfect communion with her does not mean approval of many errors that grow in the bosom of the Holy Church, provoked by her human part. And, of course, we lament profoundly with the Holy Father that the Liturgical Reform has given room for "ambiguities, liberties, creativities, adaptations, reductions and instrumentalizations" (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 10.52.61) and also has given 'origin to many abuses and led in a certain way to the disappearance of the respect due to the sacred' (Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, Offerten Situng -- Roemisches, nov.dez. 1993, p. 35). Above all, we reject every profanation of the Liturgy, for example the Masses in which the 'Liturgy degenerates into a 'show,' where one is tempted to make religion interesting with the help of silly changes in fashion...with momentary successes for the group of liturgical fabricators,' as Cardinal Ratzinger criticized" (Introduction to the book La Réforme Liturgique by Mgr. Klaus Gamber, p. 6).

Finally, neither Quo Primum nor Trent went nearly as far as you claim they did. For starters, did you know that Quo Primum allowed for the celebration of other forms of the Mass? That's right; rites which had been followed for more than 200 years were specifically exempted from the provisions of Quo Primum and from the use of the St. Pius V Missal. And NONE of the popes after Pope St. Pius V felt bound not to alter the rite. 

An interesting parallel is in 1568 the Apostolic Constitution Quod a Vobis. Here the Pope established the new Roman Breviary with forceful language fully as strong as used in Quo Primum. Your view, if it were consistent, would have to argue that there could be no change to the Roman Breviary. If that was the case, why did Pope St. Pius X not hesitate to revise the Roman Breviary in 1911 by means of his own Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu? Just as Pius X made a revision, so did Pope Blessed Paul VI revise the Roman Missal by means of his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum. 
 

Quod a Vobis says this about the Breviary, just as Quo Primum says about the Roman Missal:

 

This was a conventional legal formula in papal documents of the day, not something binding on future popes. Heck, Pius X issued a similar warning in Divino Afflatu, and yet there he was revising an "in perpetuity" document from the 16th century!

What about the part where Quo Primum says that the Tridentine Mass is to be said "in perpetuity" or to apply "henceforth, now, and forever"? It means they're to last indefinitely, that no specific date or time is set when this will automatically lapse. Thus, it will remain in force until legitimate authority (future popes) modify it. Such a thing is not unusual. For example, Pope Clement XIV wrote Dominus ac Redemptor in 1773, which suppressed the Society of Jesus, and he said the measure should be "perpetuo validas," but Pope Pius VII reestablished the Society anyway in Sollicitudo Omnium in 1814. 

​

 

Edited May 26, 2015 by Dave

[Ark]

 

​They're denied regular jurisdiction because they're gravely disobedient. To support them in their disobedience is to make yourself an accessory to their sin. And the most recent Code of Canon Law disagrees with you about the validity of SSPX confessions:
 

Dear brother, think about what you are saying here. How can Roman Catholics be disobedient simply for being Roman? The Council of Trent canonized the Roman Mass forever. Pope St. Pius V invoked the curse of Sts. Peter and Paul to anyone who dared alter the Missal and the canons of the Council of Trent explicitly forbid any pastor, including the Pope, to change it. So how can any Roman Catholic Priest be dubbed disobedient who faithfully holds what Holy Mother Church has herself defined? 

I suggest you re-evaluate your ultramontanist tendencies. The Pope is not an Absolute Monarch. The Pope is not equivalent to Tradition. Note what the First Vatican Council declared:

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

The Papacy is not a creative power in the Church. Pope Paul VI acted beyond his rightful authority when he promulgated radical alterations to the Liturgy that put the Faith in danger. The Church is in shambles and the losses are tremendous and not just in numbers but in the quality as well. How man Priests and Bishops are disobedient to the Faith and yet continue in open defiance to all that our Holy Religion demands?

How about Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, a man who has held prominent positions for several decade and has now been promoted to Consultor to the Pontifical Council on Peace and Justice. This man is pro-liberal, pro-homosexual, and has aided communities that openly attack Roman Catholicism. Are you going to tell me that Fr. Radcliffe can absolve sins but a Roman Catholic priest in the SSPX can not?

Heresy and debauchery come with a smile. 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-appointee-says-gay-sex-can-express-christs-self-gift

 

 

In a nutshell, a man must be validly ordained and must have the Church’s permission to use the power to absolve sins validly. The part about “the law itself” refers to a case of danger of death. If someone is in danger of death, even a priest who's been laicized, excommunicated, deprived of faculties, etc. validly absolves sins. SSPX priests have not been given these faculties, so the only time they could validly absolve would be when someone was in danger of death. Period. End of story.

 

But the present Hierarchy promotes the likes of Fr. Radcliffe and persecute faithful Roman Catholics. If ordinary jurisdiction is unjustly denied to a Priest because he is Roman Catholic then he is innocent. Our Lord will supply jurisdiction to His faithful priests. 

 

​What do Russian Orthodox marriages have to do with this? 

 

I ask to demonstrate the duplicity of the Neo-Modernists who readily declare heretics and schismatics like the Orthodox and Protestants have valid sacramental marriages but deny it to the SSPX. Does this make sense to you?

 

 

While I agree that the Church has been going through very dark times for several decades now, the Church determines what would constitute a state of emergency; it's not your place or the SSPX's place to do so: 
 

The Church has spoken brother, I'm just sorry you don't see yourself as part of the Church. The movement to restore Roman Catholicism is a grassroots movement. In other words, it's an organic movement, and therefore one of the signs that the Holy Spirit is responsible for it.

 

 

​The canon I cited didn't say, "This refers only to the Tridentine Mass, not any other rites of Mass that may come afterward or any that came before." It never referred to any particular rite of the Mass at all; it only referred to the Mass. In the interest of full disclosure, I happen to strongly prefer the Extraordinary Form Mass and attend it every week. But while the Ordinary Form may be deficient in some respects, at the end of the day, the Mass is the Mass is the Mass. In fact, the ONLY position for a faithful Catholic to hold is the following, as enunciated by none other than Bishop Rifan of Campos:
 

The Council of Trent canonized the Roman Mass forever. There is not other Mass that the texts could possibly refer to.

Which parts of the Novus Ordo do you acknowledge to be deficient?

Perhaps the Protestant inspired removal of the Offertory and replacing it with a Jewish prayer before meals? I challenge you to defend this radical change. 

Finally, neither Quo Primum nor Trent went nearly as far as you claim they did. For starters, did you know that Quo Primum allowed for the celebration of other forms of the Mass? That's right; rites which had been followed for more than 200 years were specifically exempted from the provisions of Quo Primum and from the use of the St. Pius V Missal. And NONE of the popes after Pope St. Pius V felt bound not to alter the rite. 

The first part of this statement is irrelevant. 

As to the second, the Council of Trent of Quo Primum explicitly forbid altering the canonized Mass. 

An interesting parallel is in 1568 the Apostolic Constitution Quod a Vobis. Here the Pope established the new Roman Breviary with forceful language fully as strong as used in Quo Primum. Your view, if it were consistent, would have to argue that there could be no change to the Roman Breviary. If that was the case, why did Pope St. Pius X not hesitate to revise the Roman Breviary in 1911 by means of his own Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu? Just as Pius X made a revision, so did Pope Blessed Paul VI revise the Roman Missal by means of his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum. 
 

I agree that it was imprudent for Pope St. Pius X to alter the Roman Breviary but you must understand a proper sense of obedience. 

We MUST obey the Pope in all non-infallible matters EXCEPT when it's a danger to the Faith. 

Pope Pius X's changes to the Breviary were unfortunate but not a danger to the Faith.

Pope Pius XII ratified Bugnini's alterations to Holy Week that are contained in the 1962 Missal. These changes are unfortunate as well, but not a danger to the Faith.

Paul VI's Consilium literally destroyed the Roman Liturgy and replaced it with a New Rite that is a danger to the faith.

Thus the difference.

What about the part where Quo Primum says that the Tridentine Mass is to be said "in perpetuity" or to apply "henceforth, now, and forever"? It means they're to last indefinitely, that no specific date or time is set when this will automatically lapse. Thus, it will remain in force until legitimate authority (future popes) modify it. Such a thing is not unusual. For example, Pope Clement XIV wrote Dominus ac Redemptor in 1773, which suppressed the Society of Jesus, and he said the measure should be "perpetuo validas," but Pope Pius VII reestablished the Society anyway in Sollicitudo Omnium in 1814. 

​

 

​This is a bad argument because the Mass involves a Sacrament whereas the Jesuits are a mere order. The Council of Trent explicitly forbid any pastor, and this would include the Pope, to make changes.

All this argumentation is not necessary in my opinion. It's evident to a any faithful person what the right course of action is.

[Dave]

Dear brother, think about what you are saying here. How can Roman Catholics be disobedient simply for being Roman? The Council of Trent canonized the Roman Mass forever. Pope St. Pius V invoked the curse of Sts. Peter and Paul to anyone who dared alter the Missal and the canons of the Council of Trent explicitly forbid any pastor, including the Pope, to change it. So how can any Roman Catholic Priest be dubbed disobedient who faithfully holds what Holy Mother Church has herself defined? 

I already explained to you that the Trent canonized the Roman Mass forever is false. Repeating yourself ad nauseam won't make your claim true. In addition, you conveniently forget that Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he ordained were not excommunicated just for wanting to say the Tridentine Mass, nor was it the reason why SSPX priests were suspended (and still are -- Pope Benedict XVI made it clear that at this time they exercise NO LEGITIMATE MINISTRY). 

I suggest you re-evaluate your ultramontanist tendencies. The Pope is not an Absolute Monarch. The Pope is not equivalent to Tradition. Note what the First Vatican Council declared:

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

Ultramontanist tendencies . . . sheesh, just as Obama supporters unjustly label anyone as "racist" merely for criticizing or disagreeing with the President's policies, disobedient Catholics unjustly label obedient Catholics as "ultramontanist" for NOT (at least openly) criticizing or disagreeing with the Pope's policies. When you resort to such labels, it shows you have no valid argument.

The Papacy is not a creative power in the Church. Pope Paul VI acted beyond his rightful authority when he promulgated radical alterations to the Liturgy that put the Faith in danger. The Church is in shambles and the losses are tremendous and not just in numbers but in the quality as well. How man Priests and Bishops are disobedient to the Faith and yet continue in open defiance to all that our Holy Religion demands?

Whether or not it was a good idea for Blessed Paul VI to promulgate "radical alterations to the Liturgy," he nevertheless had that authority, as I illustrated previously. Deal with it. Speaking of authority, you have no authority to proclaim that lawfully approved changes to the liturgy endanger the faith. According to Bishop Rifan, whom I quoted earlier, it's actually heretical to believe such a thing. Do you want to be in heresy and thus endanger your soul?

How about Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, a man who has held prominent positions for several decade and has now been promoted to Consultor to the Pontifical Council on Peace and Justice. This man is pro-liberal, pro-homosexual, and has aided communities that openly attack Roman Catholicism. Are you going to tell me that Fr. Radcliffe can absolve sins but a Roman Catholic priest in the SSPX can not?

Arguments like that remind me of little kids who say stuff like, "No fair! Why doesn't he get in trouble for XYZ while they do?!" At any rate, this statement of yours is an example of the Donatist heresy, which deals with the holiness of the minister. The sacraments work ex opere operato, not ex opere operantis. A validly ordained priest who has faculties validly absolves -- EVEN IF he happens to be a dissident. SSPX priests don't have faculties, no matter how much you try and insist they do or wish they did. 

But the present Hierarchy promotes the likes of Fr. Radcliffe and persecute faithful Roman Catholics. If ordinary jurisdiction is unjustly denied to a Priest because he is Roman Catholic then he is innocent. Our Lord will supply jurisdiction to His faithful priests.

Oh bull, the hierarchy itself doesn't persecute faithful Roman Catholics, and no priest has ever been denied faculties just for being Roman Catholic! Get the chip off your shoulder! While individual priests and bishops have indeed been guilty of persecuting traditional Catholics at times, even just a few folks who constantly play the victim and choose to see persecution behind every tree makes traditional Catholics as a whole look bad and feed into the negative stereotypes about them.

I ask to demonstrate the duplicity of the Neo-Modernists who readily declare heretics and schismatics like the Orthodox and Protestants have valid sacramental marriages but deny it to the SSPX. Does this make sense to you?

The Church says Protestants and the Orthodox have valid sacramental marriages; so are you saying Holy Mother Church is "neo-Modernist"? At any rate, yes, it makes perfect sense to me. Protestants and the Orthodox aren't Catholic, so they can't very well be bound by Catholic Church laws. But the SSPX is Catholic, and so they are bound by Church law, which, sadly, they disobey.

The Church has spoken brother, I'm just sorry you don't see yourself as part of the Church. The movement to restore Roman Catholicism is a grassroots movement. In other words, it's an organic movement, and therefore one of the signs that the Holy Spirit is responsible for it.

Excuse me?! Where do you get the absurd notion that I, according to you, don't see myself as part of the Church? And yes, the Church has indeed spoken about what constitutes an emergency, but she hasn't said what YOU wanted or expected her to say. If you had read my previous post closely, you would have seen where I cited the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, which addresses that very thing.

The Council of Trent canonized the Roman Mass forever. There is not other Mass that the texts could possibly refer to.

I already explained to you that Trent did NOT canonize the Tridentine Mass forever. 

No other Mass that the texts could possibly refer to, you say? What about the Eastern rites? What about Church-approved rites that came previously?

Which parts of the Novus Ordo do you acknowledge to be deficient?

Sorry, I'm not going to debate OF vs. EF here.

The first part of this statement is irrelevant. 

As to the second, the Council of Trent of Quo Primum explicitly forbid altering the canonized Mass.

No, it's not irrelevant, nor, as I've explained for the umpteenth time, did Quo Primum forbid altering the Mass. If Quo Primum truly canonized the Tridentine Mass as the ONLY form, it wouldn't have even allowed for other previous rites of Mass to be said.

I agree that it was imprudent for Pope St. Pius X to alter the Roman Breviary but you must understand a proper sense of obedience. 

We MUST obey the Pope in all non-infallible matters EXCEPT when it's a danger to the Faith. 

Pope Pius X's changes to the Breviary were unfortunate but not a danger to the Faith.

Pope Pius XII ratified Bugnini's alterations to Holy Week that are contained in the 1962 Missal. These changes are unfortunate as well, but not a danger to the Faith.

Paul VI's Consilium literally destroyed the Roman Liturgy and replaced it with a New Rite that is a danger to the faith.

Thus the difference.

First, whether or not the breviary changes were imprudent is a matter of opinion (like debating which flavor of ice cream is better). You don't have to like them or think they were prudent, but I don't see you claiming outright that they LACKED that authority.

Second, as I've already said, an approved liturgical rite of the Church CANNOT INTRINSICALLY be a danger to the faith; if you believe otherwise, then you've placed yourself outside the Church.

As for obedience, your notion of true obedience is flawed. In true obedience, we obey legitimate authority in all things except sin. St. Francis de Sales said it best:

"Obedience lovingly undertakes to do all that is commanded it with simplicity and without ever considering whether the command is good or bad, provided that the person who orders has authority to order, and that the command serves to unite our mind to God" (Spiritual Conferences, XI, p 179).

He also adds what I just mentioned, namely, that we MUST disobey an order to commit sin. Aside from that, however, the truly obedient person doesn't go astray even when the superior is wrong and commands what is less good than what we ourselves would choose. Then God, to Whom the submission is given and Who sees the heart, rewards this obedience by assuring success. Again, St. Francis de Sales says the following:
 

"The truly obedient man will come out the conqueror in all the difficulties into which he may be led by obedience, and with honor from all the roads he has traversed, however dangerous" (Ibid, p. 199).

 

In other words, a superior may err in commanding, but we make no mistake in obeying, a conclusion which emerges just as clearly from the following statement of Pope Leo XIII:
 

"The only reason which men can have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or Divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated" (Diuturnum Illud [1881], Denz. 1857).

But what if there are doubts as to the goodness or sinfulness of a given command? In that case, one MUST obey, as the benefit of the doubt ALWAYS goes to the superior -- EVEN in cases where obedience to said command appears to be PROBABLY sinful. In other words, for disobedience to be a good thing, the command must be blatantly, obviously, without-a-doubt sinful. St. Ignatius Loyola elaborates on this:

"When, in my opinion and judgment, the Superior bids me to do something which is against my conscience or sinful, and the Superior thinks the contrary, I ought to believe him unless he is manifestly wrong" (Monumenta Ignatian, series 1a, XII, 660).

Finally, you said:

This is a bad argument because the Mass involves a Sacrament whereas the Jesuits are a mere order. The Council of Trent explicitly forbid any pastor, and this would include the Pope, to make changes.

It's not at all a bad argument because if you're to be consistent, then you'd have to claim that no pope could ever resurrect the Jesuit order because the original order dissolving them was to be "in perpetuity." And of course, your repetition of your erroneous claim that Trent forbade changes to the Mass won't make your claim true. Besides, we must remember the text of Quo Primum shows that St. Pius V that his Mass was a NEW RITE, not the same thing that had been celebrated for 15 centuries. A pure reading of the text of the New Testament institution of the Eucharist by Christ and very early rites showed that since then there were many changes over the years, though the substance was maintained. That is the same thing maintained by Blessed Paul VI when he instituted the Novus Ordo Mass. Trent called for Pius V to do a revised Roman Missal, just as Paul VI did a revised Roman Missal at the request of Vatican II. The Council of Trent writes: "In the dispensation of the sacraments, provided their substance is preserved, the Church has always had the power to determine or change, according to circumstances, times and places, what she judges more expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the sacraments" (Council of Trent, 21st Session). Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei explained, as circumstances warrant, "public worship is organized, developed and enriched by NEW RITES, CEREMONIES, and regulations" (#22).

 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

We should be honest with ourselves though. While the late sententiae excommunication were asserted specifically with regards to the consecrations and not their holding to the traditional Mass, it is more true to remember that the only reason the SSPX found themselves in Rome's bad graces was that they would not say the new Mass after 1971. Lefevre was told several times, "just say the Nocvus Ordo right now with me, publicly, and all this will go away."

I believe that was a sincere offer. And history tells us this keeping of the traditional Mass was not wrong.

[PhuturePriest]

​Canon VII refers to the canonized Roman Mass (i.e. the Trdientine Mass) and not the promulgated Novus Ordo Missal of Paul VI. 

The Council of Trent furthermore forbade anyone, and that includes the Pope, from making significant alterations to the canonized Mass. Pope St Pius V also made this very clear in his famous Quo Primum. The Tridentine Mass will forever remain the canonized Mass of the Roman Rite, and in due time it will return to it's rightful place as our ordinary form of worship.

 

​Sorry, have to stop you there. Popes say in official documents all the time phrases that go along the lines of "x shall be this way forevermore". In fact, when a Pope (can't remember his name) liquidated the Jesuits, he said they would be liquidated forevermore, and yet a Pope a few centuries later reinstated them. Not only that, but the Council of Trent said that the Tridentine Mass would remain the Mass forevermore and that there would be no significant alterations, and yet Pope Pius X did make significant changes, so if you're mad about alterations to the Tridentine, look towards the Society's namesake, not Vatican II.