.
PostYou're speaking from ignorance.
It's absurd of you to deny the reality, plain and simple. The Newmass was never promulgated, and I know -- that destroys your argument, and to you, your argumentation is much more important than the truth.
There was no promulgation at all, but only the appearance of promulgation. Anyone who did not obey the nonsense demands that Paul VI wielded over their heads like the tyrant he was, got punished.
But there was no promulgation.
You ought to pay better attention.
.
You've just said this about half a dozen times now and have yet to offer a single argument or point of evidence ... as if just saying it enough times makes it true.
You're right Neil! It wasn't promulgated.....by a pope.
You guys just don't want to pay attention, do you? You have your doctrine of your own making and that's that. The questions are resolved. Your house of cards is built on a foundation of sand and you cannot bear to recognize the fact because you really like your house of cards.
I understand.
Nobody ever in the history of the word prolmulgated the NovusOrdo Missae, nor even if they had tried to do so would they be able to because it would be subject to condemnation by a future authority. They knew that, and that's why they went around the problem by doing their circus act dog-and-pony show instead. And it worked...................... so far.................... but it can't endure forever.
There will come a time when this charade is shut down, and we hope it won't be too far into the future, but for now, it's looking like it might take a worldwide catastrophe to make it possible for the recovery to take place. But if somehow there is no catastrophe and instead some kind of divine intervention happens, what will be the condition of the sedevacantists? Will they recognize it for what it is? It would seem not.
.
Paul VI clearly promulgated it and you still have not given any proof otherwise. All you do is point fingers at those who recognize that it has been and tell us what idiots we are. Your posts are ridiculous. I'm this close to ignoring you along with LH.
If you haven't heard
Fr. Kramer's conference in London June 2nd 2013, then go to
this link to hear the mp3 recording. I don't know where to find a transcript.
.
.
.
.
Okay, I couldn't find a transcript so I made one for you (this is about
the second half of the presentation, the first half being most appropriate
as well, but as is not too uncommon in Fr. Kramer's speeches, even
though it's now over 5 months later, some readers might not yet be
quite up to speed enough to cope with the implications)
[my comments
are in blue-brackets]:
[...] From the time of the Apostles, up until the middle ages, and down
through the centuries and down through the millennia, there has been
a development, a growth of the liturgy, like the acorn that grows
into the tree. It is an organic development. And the popes have
taught that this organic development is the only legitimate
development of the liturgy, so that the rite is preserved, it grows
as one organism. As the sapling grows into the great tree, it is the
self-same organism. And so, that even the second Vatican Council,
speaking on liturgy, spoke of the necessity of "organic development."
But again, when
the lunatics took over the asylum, it's like they
wanted to hatch a test-tube baby and let it grow into adulthood! The
only problem with that is, it takes too long, for their revolution called
for instant change. So they threw away the test-tube and they built a
robot -- and they called
that an "organic development."
The men who created the NovusOrdo of Mass, the members of that
commission called the "Consilium," set up by Pope Paul VI to
fabricate the new liturgy, and fabricate they did! -- and one of the
principal fabricators of the new rite of "mass" was a man by the
name of Jourenout (sp?), Fr. Joseph Jareloux (sp?), and
he wrote quite explicitly:
"The Roman Rite has been destroyed." Of course, who could know better than one of the men who
destroyed it themselves? It is not the Roman Rite; there is some
vestige of it left; but the simple truth is, the Roman Rite no longer
exists. It has been destroyed. Pope Paul VI, on the 19th of
November, 1969, announced that there would be introduced into the
liturgy of the Latin Church a NEW RITE OF MASS,
nuovo rita di
Messa.
No, this would not be some organic fine tuning, some revision,
adaptation of the Roman Rite. No,
it is a new rite of mass. It is no
longer the Roman Rite. And there is a problem there. Because the
dogma of the Faith infallibly teaches that this cannot be done.
The Modernist objection that I always hear is, "Well, that's just
discipline - that's not dogma!" That, "Liturgy is discipline, it's not
dogma." Well, the discipline of the Church must be conducted
according to the guidelines of dogma insofar as dogma exclusively
teaches, it lays down those guidelines, concerning the liturgy. So
we have already, from the time of Pope St. Agatho, the pope making
the solemn oath preserving the liturgy of the Church, undeminished,
unaltered, and that became even more solemnly formalized in the
profession to be made by the Pope, described in the Oecuмenical
Council of Constance in session number 39.
In Session 39 it is explained that since the pope has such a great
power over the faithful, that he must solemnly profess that he must
keep the faith unaltered, and the liturgical rites to be preserved
unaltered; that the Church is BOUND to the received and approved
rites -- to the Traditional rites: the WHOLE Church, not just the priests,
not just the Faithful, not just the bishops, not just the cardinals;
the
pope, the WHOLE CHURCH is bound, by the law of God, defined
by the Church infallibly, to the Traditional rites. That's why the popes for so many centuries swore that they would
not dilute or change the Sacred Liturgy. And the Council of Constance
infallibly declared that the Church is bound to the Traditional rites.
They cannot be done away with! They cannot be reformed into new
rites! If anyone SAYS that they can be reformed into new rites or that
they can be dispensed with, or that they can be despised, that is
declared by the Church to be a heresy.
In Session 7, Canon 13 of the Council of Trent, Sacraments in General,
it is formulated thusly:
Rejectus quoque et apparatus ecclesiae
formulae..., (etc.). That is the the profession of faith, the Tridentine
Profession of Faith, of the 13th of November 1564. A solemn
profession of faith issued by Pope Pius IV, in the Bull
Inuctum Nobis (sp?), where it is solemnly professed the adherence to the Traditional
Rites. On this dogmatic basis, therefore, we have the basis for the
formulation of the dogmatic Canon, that I just mentioned, Session 7,
Canon 13 on the Sacraments in General.
Si Christ dixit, repromatus ecclesiae..., (etc.),
...anathema sit. So what the solemn anathema is declaring to be a heresy, for anyone
to say the Traditional Rites -- the received and approved Rites of the
Catholic Church, customarily used in the administration, the received
and approved Rites used in the administration of the sacraments -- may
be despised? Well, the Rites are certainly despised in our time! Or
that they can be freely deleted by the ministers, as if it becomes a
matter of preference:
"The NovusOrdo is 'all right', but we prefer the
Old Rite; but we'll consider it legitimate -- it's been legitimately
promulgated, so, it's all right, we have no objection to it. Let the rest
of the Church use the New Rite, but we'll, uh, WE HAVE OUR
EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENTS to the 'old rite', so we wanna keep to
that..." Anyone who says that, according to this dogmatic
Canon of the Church,
f a l l s i n t o h e r e s y ! Auscivivocanto nobis dimitti...(etc.)... nuntare posse Or if any
ecclesiastical pastor WHOSOEVER -- and considering that the Church
has already defined that the ENTIRE CHURCH, including the Pope, is
BOUND to the Traditional Rites, the Council of Trent's decree is to be
understood according to the dogmatic pronouncements of the past,
the CONSTANT dogmatic teaching of the Church, that by "any pastor
of churches, WHOSOEVER" : it is understood,
including the Pope
himself, because of the profession of the Council of Constance.
So, whenever I quote this Canon, I'm always told by some Modernist
who thinks of himself, "enlightened," he'll say, "Well, that's YOUR
INTERPRETATION -- that's just your interpretation, that just refers to
the hierarchy UNDER the pope, but the pope has the authority to
regulate the liturgy; it doesn't apply to him!"
Well, no. No, sorry but, ah, dear Modernists, the Church has already
defined that the Pope, principally, MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE, the
Pope is bound to the Traditional Rites. THAT'S the Council of
Constance. Then this is the Council of Trent saying that if anyone
says that the Traditional Rites can be changed into new rites, that
proposition is HERESY.
And so, it has been most constantly taught in the Church, in the
most approved teaching of the greatest theologians in the history
of the history of the Church, men like Juan de Torquemada, who
was the papal theologian of Pope Eugenius IV, and he was
officially the theologian of the Oecuмenical Council of Florence,
and Francisco Suarez after him,
"doctor eximius et Deus" the
excellence of pious doctor, explained that those who would
carry out into practice that heretical proposition of changing the
Rites -- that if the Pope would change the rites, then the Pope
himself would fall into schism. It is essentially a schismatic
act and it is rooted in heresy, a very solemnly declared heresy,
that it would be permissible to change the Traditional Rites into
new rites. That Is Heresy.
[Note the difference: if Fr. Kramer was 'sedevacantist' at this
point he would be leaping to the irrational conclusion that therefore
the pope is not the pope and this is proof positive. But Fr. Kramer
is not 'sedevacantist' and does not irrationally leap to such
inappropriate conclusions.]And what did Pope Paul VI declare? In 1969, in November of this
year
[1969], there will be introduced into the liturgy of the Latin
Church, a new rite of Mass.
So then, the Modernists will point out, "well, it is the grace of office
that preserves the Pope from promulgating for the whole Church
an illicit rite. That cannot be."
[Fr. Kramer is being diplomatic and kind. He says, correctly, that
this is what the MODERNISTS say, but the message serves as well
to the sedevacantists who likewise say this, and in so doing make
themselves into Modernists. You see, this is due to the fact that
Fr. Kramer has studied what Modernism is, and he knows how to
avoid falling under its inherent deception.]Well, one that would say this is either dishonest, or has not
carefully read the docuмent,
Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI.
Because in
Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI, we see in the
title, the word,
"Promulgatio," Promulgation. If you read in the
essence of law, promulgation is one of the essential characteristics
that constitute the law. If there's no promulgation, then there is
no law.
The docuмent is lacking the substance and form of promulgation.
The missal of Paul VI was never promulgated by Paul VI.
You have the solemn promulgation of Pope Pius V, of the Roman
Missal, and there, it is explicitly stated, that this missal is to be
used by those subjects, with those exceptions, and all other missals
are to be utterly discarded. So, who is subject to the law? What is
the very, what is being bound in conscience with statutory force of
law? That is all spelled out explicitly in the most tersely worded,
clear, legal, Latin imaginable. THAT is promulgation.
It's not a law if it's not preceptive in its wording. If the law does
not command something under obligation and penalty, it doesn't
have the force of law; it's not a law. It simply is not a law. And
without that having been formalized, in the very substance of the
law, enacted as binding, you do not have the promulgation of law.
You do not have the substance in the form of a law. It is lacking.
So, Pope Paul VI uses the word, "promulgation," in the
title of a docuмent that doesn't promulgate anything.Read it carefully. I would compare it to -- just think that if Pope
Pius XII had been forgetful, when he solemnly defined the dogma
of the Assumption, and you would have that Papal Bull, sent out
to solemnly define the dogma of the Assumption, and you would
have the entire docuмent from beginning to end, exactly as it is
worded. But if that one sentence were left out, where he says,
by our apostolic authority, we define, declare, that the Blessed
Virgin Mary was body and soul assumed into heaven -- if that line
had been left out, it wouldn't be a defined dogma of the Faith.
Even if the title at the top of the page says, "
This Is a Dogmatic
Definition," there's no definition in the docuмent if you leave
that line out. The critical line has to be there. Without it, there
is just no definition, and likewise, with the "promulgation," that
clause, which says by our apostolic authority we statute and
decree that this missal is henceforth to be used in the churches
of the Roman Rite -- SOMETHING LIKE THAT does not appear
AT ALL.
What Paul VI did was, he used a deceptive formula. He did
decree something. He says, "What we have decreed in this
docuмent is given the force of law -- what we have decreed," uh,
what did he decree?
Ask the question what he had decreed: "What have you decreed,
Pope Montini?" Well, he decreed two things:
1) He decreed that three Eucharistic prayers are to be added into
this missal; and he decreed that,
2) There is one formula of consecration that is to be the same for
ALL FOUR Eucharistic prayers.
So, what he DECREED was simply what was to be published in the
missal. The docuмent is not a promulgation of a rite; it is a
publication of a missal. That's all
Missale Romanum ever was.
He gave FORCE OF LAW to THE PUBLISHING of THE MISSAL,
...........................(of his new rite of mass)..............................
How does this affect the discipline of the Church?
In no way at all.[No one, no Catholics, no priests, have been required by force of
law in the Church to celebrate or to attend the Newmass. It is not
a matter of discipline in the Church to have anything to do with the
Newmass. Therefore, it is a lie to say that the heavy-handed
imposition of the Newmass on the Church supports the proposition
that the pope is not the pope and the Church is not the Church.]Were they aware of this defect? Oh, yes, they were. Because, there
is something very anomalous. You open up the Novus Ordo missal,
There you see, very prominantly displayed, is
"Missale Romanum"Pope Paul VI's "promulgation"; there's the docuмent -- it doesn't
promulgate anything, it just publishes a missal, it authorizes the
publication of the missal, that's all it does. Turn the page, what do
you see? A decree signed by
[Benno] Cardinal Gut: "Promulgation"
[the anomaly, for which Cardinal Gut might be burning in hell].
How is it that a missal had to be promulgated twice? Well, because
the first promulgation was
[under] the color of law; it had no
form or substance; it was nothing. It was not a promulgation. So, it
was entirely, even from a formalistic legal sense, it was entirely
ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE TO USE the Paul VI missal! Even if it were
NOT against a dogma of the Faith in Session 7 Canon 13 of the
Council of Trent; even if that were not a dogma of the Faith -- Let's
say it were morally, dogmatically permissible to abolish the rites and
to create new rites
[just for the sake of argument], and that all you
need is the legal formality of promulgation. Well still, it was not
promulgated. So, Cardinal Gut had to sign a decree promulgating
the missal.
There's a problem with that, too. Because in law, a solemn decree of
a Pope cannot be overruled by a cardinal of the curia, even if he's
specifically authorized by the Pope. It has to be a decree of equal
solemnity to overrule the solemn decree of a Pope.
So, you have the very solemn decree of Pope Pius V, in
Quo Primum,
promulgating the Roman Missal codifying the rite for the Latin
Patriarchate with few exceptions. And then you have Pope Paul VI,
telling this cardinal to overrule Pope Pius V's decree. It cannot be
done.
[And if you were to say that to Pope Montini, he would reply,
"Oh no? Just watch me!" That's the kind of impudence that comes
with diabolical possession.] The principle of law was formulated by, back in the 1400's [15th
century], by an English canonist, uh, I'm trying to think of his name;
Lynwood or something like that, where he said that he was explicating
that principle in a particular case. The Papal Legate brought a
docuмent from Rome and he says he's "enforcing the docuмent."
Cardinal Ottoban (sp?) later became Pope himself, he came to
England with this decree. I think the man's name was William
Lynwood, from the Archepiscopal curia of Canterbury, and his
commentary was, well, the cardinal has no authority to enforce
anything. It's already the Pope who decreed it. It's as though, what
more can a cardinal say? All he can do is deliver it, because, he
invokes that point of law, that principle of law,
Inferior non potest
tollere legem superiores -- the inferior, the subject, cannot nullify
the law of the superior. And as Cardinal Ottoban (?) did not have
authority exceeding that of the Pope, well, neither did Cardinal Gut
possess the authority to overrule the solemn decree of Pope Pius V.
So, the two promulgations of the rite are BOTH invalid.
Number One, Pope Paul VI's promulgation is invalid because it
doesn't promulgate anything. And Cardinal Gut's promulgation
is invalid because he does not possess the power to overrule the
solemn decree of a Pope, even if Pope Paul VI told him to do it.
He didn't have the power to do it.
[Therefore the Newmass and sacraments were not promulgated,
number one.]So we have, if anyone will say that the missal of Paul VI, that the
sacramental rites of Paul VI were "legitimately promulgated,"
well, it is strictly, according to the teaching of the Church, violating
the dogmatic canon and therefore, it is heretical in its very nature
to say that these things are legitimate, or that they were legitimately
promulgated.
[And since Bishop Fellay wrote in his AFD of 2012 that
the Newmass was "legitimately promulgated," that makes him a
partaker in this heresy, in denial of the infallible canon of Trent.]
Secondly (first of all that they were not promulgated) and secondly,
because by reforming the rites, it can never be legitimate, to
promulgate a rite that is forming a rite that is reforming the
Traditional, received and approved Rite into other new rites. This is
declared by the Council of Trent to be
"ANATHEMA." And this anathema is exactly what Pope Paul VI carried out into action
and enforced on the Church! FALSELY claiming that it had the force of
law, when it did NOT. --- So much so, that in
Summorum Pontificuм Pope Benedict XVI stated very explicitly that the Traditional Rite of
Mass had never actually been suppressed, and consequently the
priests always had the right to use that "old missal." But if you look
in the official docuмents of the post-Council, they said very clearly that
the priest is not at liberty to use the 'old rite." He has to have permission.
And so, Pope Paul VI gave a very limited "Indult", and then Pope John
Paul II grabbed it and gave an expanded "Indult", this was TOTALLY
FRAUDULENT.
Pope Benedict XVI made it very clear, that it was all a total fraud.
Pope Benedict said, it was never suppressed. The priests always had
the full right to use that "old missal." It was never suppressed.
Well, of course it was never suppressed, and the Newmass was
never promulgated, and even if it had been promulgated, the
promulgation of such new rites is anathema, according to the
infallible teaching of the Church. So, that leaves us with one dilemma here. Whoever would say
such a thing, legitimizing that anathema, and, how should I say,
promoting the fraud of the promulgation of the new rites, whoever
would make a statement like this
falls into heresy and commits
an act of fraud; But if they were ever to say, "we declare that we recognize
the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments
celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does
according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the
Roman Missal" [Sound familiar? Look up the AFD of 2012] -- well, even Archbishop Lefebvre admitted the validity of the
Sacrifice of the Mass of the New Rite in Latin -- that's not the fraud.
The next line, "indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal
and the Sacramentary rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes
Paul VI and John Paul II" --
NO. They were not 'legitimately
promulgated' first of all, because it's a fraud to claim that
they were promulgated, because the Newmass was never
promulgated -- it's a fraud -- it was never promulgated. Secondly, the promulgation of it would be, according to the
Church's teaching, would be an act of schism, and to
say that
the Traditional Rite can be reformed into the New rite of Paul VI, is
heresy: Session 7, Canon 13 of the Council of Trent.
So, to make the statement, one is legitimizing fraud, schism and
heresy. So, the only comment I can make further on that topic is
that, as always: What am I resisting? I'm resisting heresy and
schism. I don't care what's the name of the individuals, or of the
organization, that promotes schism, heresy and fraud, and I'm
mentioning no names.
As a priest of Jesus Christ, I condemn falsehood, I condemn what is
against the teaching of the Church. Because that is my duty as a
minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And that proposition that I
just read, it comes from some docuмent that's titled,
"Doctrinal
Preamble" [a.k.a. the AFD]. Whoever wrote it, whoever signed it,
I do not care. That is promoting fraud, schism and heresy in the
Catholic Church.
(Applause.)
.
Topic: Fr. Paul Kramer the Mystery of Iniquity the Newmass (Read 1502 times)