.


This topic has been coming up in various threads on CI and in various
sermons by priests and in conferences, phone calls, meetings in the
park or after Mass with or without coffee and donuts.  

Fr. Hewko gave a sermon on April 26th that went into it pretty seriously,
saying that if you or I were given a copy of +Fellay's AFD (unfortunately
misnamed "the preamble"), and given the choice of signing it or being
put to death, we would have to choose death - and that would be
martyrdom.  We would have to choose martyrdom over signing the AFD.
But +Fellay signed it.  He not only signed it, but he thought about it for
8 months, did not tell anyone about it (except for his pack of denizens)
and then tried to keep it hush-hush and secret from the world for the
next YEAR, until some brave priests in France had had ENOUGH of the
deception, and 'leaked' it, upon which +Fellay was FURIOUS and tried
to admonish their 'naughtiness' even by speaking in public to denounce
their so-called 'disobedience'.



In the April 2013 issue of Catholic Family News, there is a "Special
Feature" article that encapsulates "an edited transcript of a speech"
given by Fr. Paul Kramer.  It doesn't say where or when he gave it, or
to WHOM it was given.  What was the context?  A conference?  A retreat?
Some kind of theological investigation?  It seems to me that this would
be very useful to know, as this material is very powerful and has
immense implications for our entire Crisis in the Church and also the
smaller albeit just as significant to some who are in the middle of it,
crisis in the SSPX.  This absence of data in this article of CFN is a bit odd,
because so often CFN articles have voluminous footnotes! (?)  

The article is found on page 13, called "THE INTERNATIONAL REPORT'
and subtitled "Pope Paul VI and the 'Promulgation' of the New Mass."

After a couple of pages of introductory material that is very good to
read, but beyond the scope of this one small post on CI, Fr. Kramer gets
into the real meat of the issue [my editorial additions are in brackets, and
added emphasis is mine as well]:  





Fr. Paul Kramer:

Pope Paul VI, not understanding that this is a matter of divine and
Catholic Faith -- [that any liturgy is not an authentic liturgy if it has not
been received through the vehicle of tradition], solemnly professed
in the Tridentine profession of Faith -- announced that this liturgy was
going to be changed. There would be great changes in the liturgy.
And how can this be, since the Mass as Montini himself admitted, is
considered to be the untouchable traditional expression of our
religious cult and our faith?

When we speak of the loss of faith we are told about by Our Lady of
Fatima in the Third Secret, we can see this point had already been
obscured [gradually over the previous 4 centuries].  Since the
Protestant Reformation there has been such an emphasis on doctrinal
clarity in the refutations of the false doctrines of the Protestants that
the Church's teaching regarding liturgy has been neglected.  And
being neglected, it was forgotten.

And so when the changes were made, they were put into practice by
those who, in positions of high authority, had neglected the Church's
teaching in [regards to the] making [of] these changes.  And this is
why [we may confidently surmise with reasonable expectation that]
the Third Secret [which we have not been yet privileged to know its
actual and literal contents but we are indeed able to arrive at very reliable
judgments as to that content in advance of its eventual release to the
world] deals with the negligence of the pastors in the upper
hierarchy of the Church.

[ This is to say, the Third Secret can be logically expected to contain
the admonition that it is due to the negligence of the pastors in the
upper hierarchy of the Church that unnecessary and abominable
changes were made in the sacred liturgy that has been handed down
to us from the Apostles, and that this negligence is squarely based on
the fact that those negligent bishops who implemented these
abominable changes did so after having forgotten the Apostolic
patrimony they had received, which they therefore did not observe! ]


The "Promulgation" of the New Mass?

Before I get to Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium, I must point
out that if we read very astutely the decree Misasale Romanum of
Pope Paul VI, we'll see that Pope Paul VI never decreed, he never
promulgated the new Rite of Mass to replace the old Rite. In fact, he
never properly promulgated the Mass at all.

In one of my conversations with the late Bishop Salvador Lazo I
pointed out, "Your Excellency, you must be very astute when you
read these docuмents because they are very tricky. They seem to
insinuate and imply one thing, without actually stating it. They have
the appearance of decreeing something into law, but if you look very
carefully nothing at all is decreed."

Bishop Lazo answered me, "But Rome, the Vatican, the heads of the
Roman Curia, the dicasteries, they're our Spiritual Fathers. Our
relationship to them is that of filial piety to our Spiritual Fathers.  So
we did not expect that we needed to read their docuмents so astutely."

And he became very angry, "Because" he said, "they took advantage
of our filial piety and they tricked us."



[ Doesn't this sound rather familiar today?  Didn't Bishop
Fellay say that the Romans "tricked" him?  Did not this
conversation between Fr. Kramer and bishop Lazo take place
several YEARS before +F had his run-in with the same
treachery from the highest offices of the Church?  If +F had
been paying attention to Fr. Kramer and had been practicing
his faith as a true shepherd of souls, would he not have been
forewarned about this danger so as to have not been 'tricked'
in the first place?  One can only suspect this would have been
the case!   ---------- AND FURTHERMORE, does this not remind
the reader of Bp. Fellay accusing the Resistance of looking at
his words with a "magnifying glass" and trying to find what he
has said that is deliberately deceptive or somehow "sneaky?"
The impertinence, the abject and pertinacious refusal of Bp.
Fellay to observe the Apostolic Tradition handed down to us
from our fathers in this scenario is utterly beyond words.  And
furthermore, the conspicuous blindness of  CFN to point out
this ELEPHANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM is, how shall I
say it?  -Disappointing, to be mild about it? ]



In the Vatican II, so-called Roman Missal, which does not have
the Roman Rite in it but the Rite of Pope Paul VI, you will see at the
end of the docuмent that Pope Paul VI very solemnly says, "What
we have decreed will go into force on the following November 30, of
next year."

Now people read that -- as they did more than thirty years ago -- [as
if it says], "What we have decreed is going to have the force of law
next November.  That means this missal is going to be the law of the
Church. This is the missal that we have to use sarting next November."  
That was the impression they wanted to create.  But they would not  
take the responsibility of actually legislating that.

Then you [should] re-read the entire docuмent.  Read the whole
thing again.  What was decreed?  What actually did that docuмent
decree?  What did he so solemnly declare was going to have the
force of law in the following November?  There are precisely two
decrees in that apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum, of Pope
Paul VI.  He decrees that three new Eucharistic prayers are to be
printed in this book. He decrees what are to be the words of
consecration that are to appear in all four Eucharistic prayers. That
is the only thing that he decrees in that entire docuмent, the
so-called Roman Missal.  

Read it carefully. You will see that there is nothing else decreed in the
entire docuмent.  

A new Rite of Mass is not promulgated in that decree.



[ Now, frankly, I find the following alarming.  Here we are, in 2013, a
year after the AFD, and the MAJORITY of Catholics to whom I show
this card with the 2013 AFD's III.7 on one side and the similar
paragraph from ABL's rescinded preamble of May 5th, 1988 on the
other side, with the heading, "Spot the Difference!" on the tops, say
that there is no difference (but there is), or, that the difference is
not important (but it is), or, that even if you think it's important it
really isn't because there was no 'deal' and +Fellay has 'taken back'
his offer (as of 4 months later, and only VERBALLY, not in writing,
and it was his doctrinal testimony of his beliefs which cannot really
be taken back at all), or, that the AFD was really a suggestion for
things that we can negotiate with, and change and fudge and give
and take, as it were -- We can play around with doctrine like it is
a soccer ball on the soccer field of the Faith of Catholics!  All of
these excuses and denials over the AFD ---------- BUT, when it comes
to the Newmass, OOOHHHH - it was promulgated!  It is legitimate!  
The Holy Ghost was protecting the Pope when he decreed that these
3 new prayers could be printed in a book!  (Effectively!) The heavy-
handed charism of AUTHORITY and PRUDENCE covers everything
like Martin Luther's snowy blanket over a stinking pile of manure. ]



Look at Pope Pius V's Quo Primum Tempore; now that is
promulgation:

"Henceforth, in perpetuity, this missal is to be used by all priests in
all churches of the Roman Rite, in all religious houses, and except for
those Rites that are more than 200 years old, all other missals are
henceforth to be utterly discarded."

Now this is what we call legislation.  Missale Romanum of Pope
Paul  VI merely presents a book and makes decrees on some new
prayers to be printed in the book;  there is nothing of a disciplinary
nature in it.  The new missal is not prescribed to be used, or even
permitted to be used, by anyone.  There is no authorization
whatsoever for the use of that new missal by Pope Paul VI.

Who are subject to the use of this new missal? Not a single word.  

Who may use this missal?  Where may it be used?  Not a single word.

That's why we have the very curious arrangement [that we now have].
In the title of the docuмent it says "promulgation."  We read the text
of the docuмent and we see that nothing has been promulgated.



[ Likewise, some of the docuмents of Vat.II have "Dogmatic" in the
standard English translation title, even while, all along through Vat.II
the overshadowing canard was "This is only a pastoral council!  There
is nothing definitive here.  This council does not intend to define any
doctrine of the Catholic Faith!"  And then, starting about two years
after the Council closed, the same talking heads bobbed to the
surface of the troubled postconciliar waters saying, "Oohh - but look
here:  this says "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church." There is
that most important word, "Dogmatic!"  So IT IS A DOGMATIC
COUNCIL, not merely pastoral after all!" Now, any of you statisticians
out there in CI land, what is the probability that +Fellay, who is learning
these Modernist tactics so well, has in mind that two years after his
so-called preamble is ACCEPTED by modernist Rome and the 'deal'
is therefore done, that he would then come out saying that "Oh, but
see here -- we have stated what we believe, that the Newmass is
legitimately promulgated, and therefore, we must abide by our
promise to do the right thing, and celebrate (with JOY!) the Newmass"?
Would you say pretty much a probability of "UNITY?" Hey - maybe
that's what +F was talking about when he said they have discovered
our essential 'unity'?  --- HAHAHAHAHAAHA ]



Just imagine if the solemn definition of the Assumption of the Blessed
Virgin Mary into Heaven were missing the one key passage where
Pope Pius XII says we define, we state, we declare that this is a
dogma, a revealed dogma of the Catholic Faith that the Blessed Virgin
Mary, at the end of Her life was assumed, body and soul, into Heaven.  
What would be the dogmatic value, the dogmatic force of that
docuмent?

It would be absolutely worthless, It would not be a definition if it did
not have that line.  No matter what the title of the docuмent, no matter
how many pages of solemn language is in that docuмent, if that one
sentence where the actual definition is made does not appear in that
docuмent, then the docuмent is null and void.  As a definition it's
nothing.  It's worthless.

Now it pertains to the very nature of a law that a law must be
prescriptive in its words. In other words, the law must command, it
must impose an obligation on those who are subject to the law. It
must be clear who are subject to the law.  It must be clear exactly
what is being commanded.  If these things are not found in a precept,
or in a law, then it is simply not a law, because that which constitutes
the very essence, the very substance of law, is missing.  A law that
does not command the subject to do or not to do something is like a
definition that does not define.  "Lex dubia lex nulla," a doubtful
law is no law. "Lex dubia no obligat," the dubious law does not bind,
because a law must clearly give a precept -- impose a legal obligation
on those who are specified as the subjects.

Missale Romanum plainly fails to do this. It is not a law regarding
the discipline of the Church.  It does not command or authorize
anyone to use the missal of Poppe Paul VI.  And this is why we find
a second promulgation!  

Missale Romanum calls itself a promulgation.  Turn the page
after you reach the end of the docuмent and you find a promulgation
by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship signed by Cardinal
Gut, promulgating the new missal after it was just purportedly
promulgated by Pope Paul VI in Missale Romanum. Very strange
indeed.  

It is impossible for a Cardinal Prefect of a Roman congregation, even
with authorization from the Pope, to overrule and abrogate the solemn
decrees of a Roman Pontiff in and apostolic constitutions. That's clear
even from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. it is the embodiment of that
ancient legal principle that has been in the Church's canonical tradition
for centuries and centuries:  "Inferior non potest tollere legem
superioris."

But the promulgation of Cardinal Gut did not even attempt to suppress
the missal of Pope Piun V.  It went so far only as to permit the use of
the new misssal, stating that the bishops are the ones who will be
given the authority to say when the new missal may be used.



[ Note too, in SC 22.2, the paragraph that is referenced in all of
Vat.II docs more often than any other paragraph, that it will be the
authority of the local bishops "legitimately established" that will be
the ultimate arbiter of any and all changes that will take place in the
Church regarding the implementation of the product of Vat.II. ]



That's as far as the promulgation of the new missal ever went.  It is
only a permission.  It is to be implemented by the bishops.  It is an
error, therefore, for anyone to say that the missal of Pope Paul VI
was promulgated for the universal Church of the Latin Rite.  It simply
was not.  It was only given that appearance.  But the phrase
that would constitute a law, a true promulgation as a law for the
universal discipline of the Church, is nowhere to be found in the
apostolic constitution Missale Romanum.

THEREFORE,
Priests trained by Opus Dei present a baseless argument when
they say, "Well, Father, how can there be defects?  How can there be
anything wrong with the Newmass since it was promulgated for the
Universal Church?"

That's an error of fact.  it was never promulgated for the whole Church.  
It is only permitted by way of exception.  

Is the Newmass defective?  Indeed it is.

The Second Vatican Council decreed how the revision of the liturgy must
be carried out.  I quote the exact words of Sacrosanctum Concilium:

"It must be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition."  The basic
principle of tradition in the development of liturgy is a gradual organic
growth, like the child who grows up to be an adult.  If we cut off the
head and transplant the head of someone else on a human being, that
would not be a natural organic development.  Yet there were wholesale
amputations done on the venerable customary liturgy of the Roman
Church.  

The Council decreed that "...due care must be taken to preserve the
substance of the liturgical Rites."  -SC 23. Then the reform was
carried out and implemented and the head of the concilium (which was
the body constituted by Pope Paul VI to revise the liturgy), Monsignior
Bugnini, declares that it is truly a new creation; and his right-hand
man, Father Gelinaeau, says the Roman Rite has been destroyed. It no
longer exists.

I'd like to know what happened to this: "due care must be taken to
preserve the substance of the liturgical Rites"!


An Ecuмenical Liturgy

Another of that gang of liturgical vandals was Father Carlo Braga.  The
Council decreed that the liturgy must be restored according to the
pristine norms of the Holy Fathers.  According to the liturgical reformers
who created the new Rite, they made their changes with what Father
Braga called "an ecuмenical dimension, and.." (now ponder these words)
"..a new foundation of Eucharistic theology."  No longer the theology of
the Council of Trent, the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas.   But a new
foundation of Eucharistic theology.

And as we go throughout them one by one, we see that the changes
made in the liturgy reflect exactly those changes undertaken by the
Protestant Reformers in the 16th Century. Does it not seem to be more
than coincidence that all the changes made in the liturgy were precisely
those made by the Protestant Reformers?  

And whatever was found to be offensive to the Protestants, whatever
was most dear to the traditional Catholic Eucharistic doctrine and the
doctrine of the Holy Mass, was either toned down or removed altogether
from the liturgy, so that one of the Protestant observers at Vatican II,
who helped and gave advice in making the new liturgy, said that
"Evangelical Protestants with all tranquility may use this new Rite of Mass."
The "new foundation of Eucharistic theology" is clearly Protestant.



[ There is a lot more to this article, this edited transcript of a speech, but
that will have to wait for another time, perhaps another place.  There is
already far too much here for the scope of a little CI thread in the Crisis
forum. ]

.


You're welcome, donkath.

Any thinking Catholic would have to know the color of this crisis.

The fact that so many are dumbfounded is unbelievable on the surface.

How can there be so much confusion?  

A year ago, to some, it seemed that Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal were flying off
the handle when they "made waves."  Now a number of those have
awakened.  But many remain hypnotized.  

The fact that Fr. Paul Kramer joined Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko at the London
Conference this past weekend is great news.  Now it's a bit hard to think
that +F will dare darken the door of the same building as Fr. Kramer, as
he is scheduled to do in September at Niagara Falls.  Time will tell.......

For the past 19 years, +F has traveled the world putting his signature on
the deeds to real estate, and promoting SSPX priests who are blindly
loyal to HIM into positions of voting capacity in the Chapters.  He has
basically stolen the SSPX.  And that takes deliberate planning and
execution - which he has done.  

Now anyone who would expect him to turn around and undo all that is
living in a daydream.  A leopard doesn't change its spots.  A revolution
does not require a majority, but only about 10%.  The key is they have
to be loyal and committed to the revolution.  +F found them and gave
them rewards for their loyalty to his every whim.

"The negligence of the pastors in the upper hierarchy of the Church"
is but an open door.  +F is beyond that.  As bad as that negligence is,
+F's actions and energy have been aggressively directed at the
destruction of the Society in a way that puts him at the level of
Annibale Bugnini or Pope Paul VI.  He has made himself into an
iniquitous corrupter of souls.

This is a big problem.

The only way a BISHOP could try to sneak that AFD under the radar
like +F did is if he has been sneaking things under the radar for years
and years and years.  

So now we find out, that's exactly what he's been up to.  We have,
literally, a MONSTER on our hands with B. Fellay.



"The negligence of the pastors in the upper hierarchy of the Church"
is Fr. Kramer's estimation of what Our Lady came in 1917 to warn us
about, that was going to cause this crisis in the Church.  The same
opportunity for corruption that this negligence provided and the negligent
bishops at Vat.II cooperated with (knowingly or not) is the same
opportunity for corruption that +F has ACTIVELY PUSHED FORWARD in
his nefarious and "sneaky" (his own word!) dirty dealing for 19 years
and counting.  

Kyrie Eleison.

I have already encountered a bizarre and clearly erroneous argument for Bp. Fellay to have signed on to the legitimate promulgation of the novus ordo of Paul VI.  

"Ah-ha!  Since the novus ordo was NOT legitimately promulgated, then there is no harm in Bp. Fellay signing on to something that doesn't exist.  He did so simply to please the Holy Father.  What can be wrong in trying to please one's Spiritual Father?"

Huh?  So the early martyrs should have gone ahead and burned incense to idols because an idol is really nothing at all?  (St. Paul himself says so!)  Don't be so sure the devil is not directly involved.  Christ doesn't spout foolishness, but Satan does, and those who listen to him long enough find their minds darkened.  They turn into fools.  As Bp. Williamson says,
"Their minds have turned to mush."

I have already encountered a bizarre and clearly erroneous argument for Bp. Fellay to have signed on to the legitimate promulgation of the novus ordo of Paul VI.  

"Ah-ha!  Since the novus ordo was NOT legitimately promulgated, then there is no harm in Bp. Fellay signing on to something that doesn't exist.  He did so simply to please the Holy Father.  What can be wrong in trying to please one's Spiritual Father?"

What you have run into is sheer stupidity in action.  And it should be called
out as such -- with a smile.  Such mental midgets need compassion, and
pity.  But they deserve no respect for their stupid ideas.  

The Holy Father is wrong, and to comply is to do so under false obedience.

When +F signs on to something that does not exist he becomes a liar. He
should know better.  He's allowing himself to be deceived.  He is asking to
be "tricked."  Then he came back and said, "They tricked me!"  

He didn't bother to mention:  "They tricked me and I asked for it."

Huh?  So the early martyrs should have gone ahead and burned incense to idols because an idol is really nothing at all?  (St. Paul himself says so!)  Don't be so sure the devil is not directly involved.  Christ doesn't spout foolishness, but Satan does, and those who listen to him long enough find their minds darkened.  They turn into fools.  As Bp. Williamson says,

"Their minds have turned to mush."

This is like saying when you find your bank balance less than what it
should be, and you ask the bank what's going on, and they tell you
that there was this check that came in and the bank honored it..
So you look at an image of the check and it's nothing you have
ever seen before -- it's not your check, it's not your signature, it's
not payable to anyone you know, and it's not even with your
letterhead - but it has your account number and the bank's routing
number on it.  So it's a fraudulent check.  You are the victim of
bank fraud.  

Should you say it's okay because among your checks, this one does
not exist?  Should you just go along to get along?  

Thanks Neil. Very good article.

Yes, thanks Neil for clarification.  The legitimacy and promulgation of the evil NO by Bishop Fellay is unforgivable.  It is a contradiction to sign one's name to a statement that legitimises an evil....let alone one that promulgates it.

It is good to put it as plainly as you have...it is enough for anyone to know.

Yes, thanks Neil for clarification.  The legitimacy and promulgation of the evil NovusOrdo by Bishop Fellay is unforgivable.  It is a contradiction to sign one's name to a statement that legitimises an evil....let alone one that promulgates it.

It is good to put it as plainly as you have...it is enough for anyone to know.

I was trying to reply to your post above but somehow didn't
stay on topic.

What +F did is not excusable -- but that is precisely what his
Accordista minions are doing, trying to excuse it.  They say,
"But there was no 'deal' so everything's okay."  

That is a direct quote BTW.

When I talk to people about this and they seem to have no
reaction, it irks me.  I start to raise my voice.  It evokes a
passion in me.  And then they start to shrink away.  To hear
someone with conviction in their tone frightens them.  They
accuse me of being 'hateful' -- How does believing in the
truth translate to 'hateful?'  Is it only because they are holding
a position in error and they want to hang on to that, then
hearing someone pronouncing contrary doctrine (i.e. truth) in
a convincing way, means they're being 'hateful?'  

+Fellay's unforgivable apostasy should be identified for what
it is.  Why give him a free pass?  He's trying to make Vat.II
sound like it's forgivable, too.  The devil no doubt loves that.

A little ambiguity goes a long way.  And the liberals will take it
and run with it all day tomorrow.  Give them an inch and they
will ALWAYS take a mile.  

+W gives a conference and faces British hecklers.  It's most
instructive to see him in action.  There is something about a
British heckler that is very irksome.  When Fr. Pfeiffer went
to London last weekend he was prepared for a lot worse.  
And that's a good thing.  I hope he always is well-prepared.

Thank you very much for posting these words of Fr. Hewko.   I have printed them up. To think that Bishop Fellay is not aware of this is beyond belief.
We have to know what is going on.  The average Catholic would not believe that Bishop Fellay does not know what Father Hewko knows.  No Catholic would make that judgement about B.F's ACTIONS.   You would be accused of being judgemental.  Charity, in the mind of a Catholic, is to give people the benefit of the doubt. It hurts to have to admit there can be no doubt that Bishop Fellay knows very well the circuмstances described here.  But unless he admits this verbally and publicly he will be given the benefit of the doubt.- and we can continue to keep our heads buried in the sand.

I hate saying this, but it is like asking the devil to tell the truth before people would believe that he is the devil.  I hasten to add that I do not call
BF 'the devil' but it is surely the devil's work.

So far, we have Fr. Hewko, Fr. Paul Kramer and Fr. Girouard all
saying the same thing, in a different way, basically, that this
Doctrinal Declaration of +Fellay is erroneous, because it says
the NOM was legitimately promulgated.

(They say it's also erroneous because it says other things, too,
but I think we have to take these items one thing at a time
because each one is very important.)

What we need is to have ALL our priests standing up to this
error.  When the Faithful hear their priest teach that a certain
proposition is an error, and condemn it, then they get used to
the idea that it might be worth thinking about it.  As it is, we
have far too many priests who don't want to take a stand.  

They're much more in their comfort zone saying that "There
are a lot of NovusOrdo faithful who are very holy people,"
and that "They are following the Church by going to the
Newmass, and it's not our place to judge them."

I'd like to know what the data looks like, insofar as what % of
priests talk like that because they believe it, and how many
talk like that because they're being TOLD they HAVE TO  talk
like that.  It's probably a lot more in the SSPX than it is outside
it.  I don't know of ANY CMRI priests who talk that way.

But that doesn't make it a sedevacantist position to NOT talk
that way.

Not liking the fact that I like something is wrong.
[The first] is infringing on my freedom.


Not liking an opinion I present is legitimate.
[The second] is exercising your [freedom - in] other words, just mean.

I still like your article Neil.

Pax

I had to spread out your sentences to see if it makes any difference.

I still have no idea what you're talking about, Napoli.  Right, wrong,
legitimate, illegitimate, freedom, slavery, mean, nice (or average?)

-- I do not know what the object is - something?  
An opinion you present?  You like something is wrong?  
What "thing" are you referring to?

An opinion you present is legitimate? What opinion you present?  
Sorry, I'm really lost here.

We're talking about the Newmass not being promulgated.  So you like the
article but you don't like the article?  BTW it is Fr. Paul Kramer's article,
not mine -- unless you're talking about the parts in blue - I wrote those.