CathInfo.com

Nishant, you should distinguish the case of John XXIII and Paul VI in one hand, and that of "John Paul II" and his successors in another hand. While it is true that John XXIII and Paul VI were peacefully accepted, many Catholics did not obey Karol Wojtyla, and thus did not acknowledge him.

The key issue is the new mass... Vatican II was not meant to be infallible, but a new liturgy is necessarily infallible; now, we can notice that the new mass has been harmful to the faith, which would be impossible if this liturgy had been approved by the Church. Therefore, it means that the new mass was not approved by Pope Paul VI; and indeed several books and private revelations have said it. The Novus Ordo, in its public version, is a forgery. The true version was okay. All the Vatican congregations were infiltrated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and Cardinal Villot and his followers falsified many docuмents of the Pope.

Cardinal Wojtyla was elected in a context of turmoil. Thousands of faithful, and hundreds of priests, did not obey him and built or bought their own chapels. These priests refused to celebrate the new mass. Wojtyla was not peacefully accepted, right from the beginning.

I insist on the fact that peaceful acceptance is fulfilled once and for all: since it occured in the beginning of Paul VI's pontificate, it never vanished later on.

All those Catholics who noticed that the new mass was harmful to the faith, since a very great number of faithful did not attend Mass any longer, and since they felt that their own faith was becoming weaker when attending the new mass.

In France, many priests refused to say the new mass. The association "Noël Pinot" counted at least five hundred priests.

Peaceful acceptance implies that the Catholics must acknowledge the Pope both theoretically and practically.