Paul VI, consistorial allocution of May 24, 1976:

"For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly! It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Is it for this group [=Lefebvrists], not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith? As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15 ff.), and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith."

"And this is all the more serious, in particular, when division is introduced precisely where congregavit nos in unum Christi amor [the love of Christ has gathered us into one], in the Liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by the refusing of obedience to the norms laid down in the liturgical sphere. It is in the name of Tradition that we ask all our sons and daughters, all the Catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervor the renewed liturgy. The adoption of the new Ordo Missae [order of the Mass] is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with the authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine popolo [without people attending]. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent."

"With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees. Any initiative which tries to obstruct them cannot claim the prerogative of rendering a service to the Church; in fact it causes the Church serious damage."

Can you succinctly summarize your point please?

The adoption of the new Ordo Missae [order of the Mass] is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful.

The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with the authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine popolo [without people attending].

The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent."

"With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees. Any initiative which tries to obstruct them cannot claim the prerogative of rendering a service to the Church; in fact it causes the Church serious damage."

The tactic of disregarding VII because "it's not infallible" is straight out of a red sea pedestrian playbook.

B.S.  There is no law or papal directive (nor has there ever been any) that the new mass must be accepted, attended or said.  +Benedict confirmed that Paul VI lied to us when his 2007 motu docuмent declared that "Quo Primum was never abrogated" and hence the Tridentine rite "was always allowed".  The logical conclusion is that, since Quo Primum only allows the Tridentine rite, that the new mass is illegal and sinful.

There is no penalty for ignoring this instruction, nor does this instruction REQUIRE anyone to follow it.  This entire thing is a legal farce which has no legal force.



Yes, it is true that the new mass was supposed to take the place of the True Mass, but they did not (nor would God allow them) to do so by force, but only legal trickery, half-truths and lying implications.  Pope St Pius V clearly laid out who had to abide by Quo Primum and who did not.  Paul VI's new mass is not required, and no docuмent from new-rome has ever said it is.

Word games.  That's all this is.  They declare that we must "obey" the reforms but when we ask "Where in the reform docuмents are the rules?" they cannot answer.  They wrote purposefully ambiguous docuмents and then want to interpret and re-interpret these docuмents whenever the need arises.  Sorry, that's not how canon law, nor liturgical rules work. 


Oh...and 40 years later, +Benedict contradicted Paul VI on almost every point above.  It's BS to the nth degree.

Not infallible in an extraordinary,solemn manner, but according to the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium:

Finally, and also by definition, nothing can be part of the ordinary magisterium which lacks universality (both geographically and temporally). 

To deny this is to suggest that novelty can be magisterial.

4. Other escapists, unwilling to falsify easily verifiable facts about the Council itself, have cheerfully altered Catholic doctrine instead. They claim in particular that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallible only when the teaching it proposes is not only taught by all the bishops at a given moment but can also be shown to have been taught by them over a very lengthy period. To justify this claim they appeal to the famous “Vincentian Canon” or touchstone of traditional doctrine: “What has always been believed, everywhere, and by all.” This requirement is also useful to those who deny the Church’s teaching that Baptism “in voto” (by desire) can suffice for justification and thus for salvation.


But the requirement is in fact heretical! The teaching of the 1870 Vatican Council on the subject is dogmatic and plain and any doubt of interpretation is resolved by reference to the conciliar discussions. The term “universal” implies universality in place, not in time. In technical terms, it is synchronic universality, not diachronic universality, which conditions the infallibility. What has been believed always and everywhere is infallibly true, but teaching may be infallibly true without having been explicitly believed always and everywhere. The present teaching of the Church’s supreme teaching authority, whether expressed in a solemn judgment or by ordinary acts, is necessarily infallible and thus quite incapable of bringing in false or new doctrine, though it may render explicit what has been hitherto implicit or make certain what has fallen into doubt. If flagrantly false doctrine is taught under conditions that ought to guarantee infallibility, it is not just the novelty that must be rejected, but the authority imposing it also, for legitimate authority cannot err in such cases and blatant error is therefore a sure proof of illegitimacy.

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/did-vatican-ii-teach-infallibly/msg372568/#msg372568

You're an "escapist" with your "temporal" universality requirement . . . actually, that would be an improvement if you were only that, since your "temporal" requirement is in fact "heretical." 

This (the Daly view) is the "spirit of Vatican I" I referred to in a prior post. He says it's in the "conciliar discussions." I don't see it in what the Holy Ghost inspired in Vatican I, and this is the issue that needs to be revisited: does the Magisterium serve Tradition and what is handed down, protect and strengthen it, or does it, ipse dixit, simply say, "what we say is Tradition, shut up and obey."

The Daly view was a trap door to Vatican II. Or, you could say Vatican II was a monster the Sede theologians created . . . before they were "Sede."

Nope.

Both John XXIII and Paul VI explicitly denied its infallibility.

Vatican II was a unique breed of cat, and unlike all other councils (just as the new canonizations use the same terminology as traditional ones, but what is being “canonized” is a new conception of “sanctity”).