Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: “And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is lead by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.

    “ It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church?  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?  It is for this group, 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, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…

   “The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful.  The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with 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 populo [without people].  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…

     “We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)


See if this ever gets quoted by the SSPX or the "r&r" crowd.

What say you Jehanne? The old mass "was never abrogated or forbidden"?

He even says, "What traditions?"


Pure evil.

The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with 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 populo [without people].

Do you have a full-text of the "instruction of 14 June 1971"? thanks

 :shocked:

Now that I've had a little time to digest this news, there is another possibility beyond the two presented by Fr. Cedaka:

3.) Quo Primum was infallible and binding for all time, and thus could not be abrogated. Paul VI might have been a valid but very bad pope who tried to either pull a fast one or was too stupid to realize that he was attempting the impossible when he attempted to abrogate the TLM. This may have been what Benedict XVI had in mind when he said that the TLM had never been abrogated.

That's not a valid possibility, since it's not true and since that would make Paul 6 a heretic anyways, which he was.

If Paul 6 was pope, he indeed abrogated the TLM, not merely "attempted" to.

Which is why i quoted his own words so people stop repeating this myth that "the TLM was never abrogated or forbidden" which Paul 6 himself, the man you think was a true Pope, clearly blows out of the water.

You're wrong about Quo Primum too.

Quo Primum: Could a Pope Change It?

That doesn't mean a Pope can promulgate a heretical, Protestant, Masonic, Pagan, invalid and Modernist Mass though!

Then maybe that's why Benedict said it had never been abrogated. I don't know.

The whole una cuм thing always seems to generate more heat than light when it comes up. I've heard arguments on both sides that sound compelling.

Take a look at the stare on Paul the Sick.

I've seen it on Ratburger too.

They are passing Masonic grips and they are trying to get the other person to acknowledge it.

Roncalli was a bit more subtle; I don't think Ungreat Wojtyla was a Mason, or he was too slick to make it appear obvious.

I think guys like Montini and Ratzinger were trying to be up and comers. Wojtyla knew his place and just smiled nice for the cameras.

We don't need to read their intentions; we just need to witness their cuмulative actions over the past 50+ years. Do they preach the Faith wholly and unaltered? Hardly. In fact, they contradict it. I know that no one here needs Scripture lessons, but it's wise to remember these words:

St. Matthew 7:15-20
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them."


St. Matthew 24:4-16
"And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many.

And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be pestilences, and famines, and earthquakes in places. Now all these are the beginnings of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name' s sake. And then shall many be scandalized: and shall betray one another: and shall hate one another.

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.

Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains."

-------------

That last sentence - as if the ones preceding it weren't enough - is the very reason why my family and I have NOTHING to do with the NO.