Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise  (Read 3102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Neil Obstat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18178
  • Reputation: +8274/-691
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .


    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 her
    e -- 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. ]




    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1520
    • Reputation: +616/-116
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #1 on: June 05, 2013, 02:19:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8274/-691
    • Gender: Male
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #2 on: June 05, 2013, 10:25:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .


    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.


    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1520
    • Reputation: +616/-116
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #3 on: June 05, 2013, 06:34:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    He has basically stolen the SSPX.  And that takes deliberate planning and
    execution - which he has done.  


    I used to think that the Church was 'stolen' from us after the event of VatII.
    But there is another side to it N.O. we allowed it to be stolen from us.  Being comprised mainly of laypeople we were complacent.  We had the faith and the Sacraments...the others didn't have it.  They had to join us.  A molly-coddled generation spawned Vat.II.  Our defences had rusted away due to negligence.

    The laity then, had no conception of that martyrs, saints, doctors, virgins and some Popes had to fight to the death for what we inherited from and through them.  The enemy struck when we were partying on.   Now it is time for the laity to wake up and fight but we are fat and lazy.  Those valiant priests and Bishop Williamson are a working at full strength, but in truth, they surely can do little without the foot soldiers.

    We have allowed ourselves to be convinced that the hierarchy is to blame.
    They stole faith from us is what I see around me everywhere.  But nobody can steal the faith..we can only surrender it of our own free will.
    We, the laity, are exhibiting a defeatist attitude sunk in Quietism.

    And THAT is what the good Bishop W and his priest-followers are up against.
    The same attitude in the laity as existed when the devil struck with Vat.II


     

    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."

    Offline Frances

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2660
    • Reputation: +2241/-22
    • Gender: Female
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #4 on: June 05, 2013, 07:19:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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."
     St. Francis Xavier threw a Crucifix into the sea, at once calming the waves.  Upon reaching the shore, the Crucifix was returned to him by a crab with a curious cross pattern on its shell.  


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8274/-691
    • Gender: Male
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #5 on: June 06, 2013, 10:55:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: donkath
    Quote
    He has basically stolen the SSPX.  And that takes deliberate planning and
    execution - which he has done.  


    I used to think that the Church was 'stolen' from us after the event of VatII.
    But there is another side to it N.O. we allowed it to be stolen from us.  Being comprised mainly of laypeople we were complacent.  We had the faith and the Sacraments...the others didn't have it.  They had to join us.  A molly-coddled generation spawned Vat.II.  Our defences had rusted away due to negligence.

    The laity then, had no conception of that martyrs, saints, doctors, virgins and some Popes had to fight to the death for what we inherited from and through them.  The enemy struck when we were partying on.   Now it is time for the laity to wake up and fight but we are fat and lazy.  Those valiant priests and Bishop Williamson are a working at full strength, but in truth, they surely can do little without the foot soldiers.

    We have allowed ourselves to be convinced that the hierarchy is to blame.




    While we are responsible for our negligence inasmuch as we get the
    pastors that we deserve, and the complacence of Catholics in the
    early 20th century gave Modernism power to grow, it is wrong to
    say that therefore the pastors are not responsible for their own
    negligence in defending the Faith.  

    When a group of 20 people standing in line at the bank waiting for
    their turn at the teller are surprised to see two burglars wearing ski
    masks and brandishing guns who rob the bank in front of them;  
    and the burglars demand the customers in line remove their Jєωelry
    and put it into a bag, and put the cash in their pockets into this bag,
    while one burglar stands guard with his gun, warning everyone not
    to oppose him, lest he punish them with his gun..

    The customers standing in line did not stop the burglars.  Why not?  

    Are they not then responsible?  Are the burglars therefore not
    responsible for this theft?  The customers have allowed themselves
    to be convinced that the burglars are to blame!  The burglars stole
    the money from the bank and from the customers, and the
    customers did not defend themselves but they are guilty of
    surrendering it of their own free will?  They exhibit an attitude sunk
    in Quietism?

    That is what a Liberal would tell you:  
    You have been robbed, but the burglars are really the victims of your
    negligence.  That's what the police today will tell you.  You should be
    more guarded.  You should hire a security guard.  You are at fault.
    You got robbed because you deserve it.



    Quote

    They stole faith from us is what I see around me everywhere.  But nobody can steal the faith..we can only surrender it of our own free will.  We, the laity, are exhibiting a defeatist attitude sunk in Quietism.





    What is surprising is, to see so many Catholics who have lived
    through the Vat.II debacle, and have seen the destruction of the Faith
    in its wake, and now they see this same debacle happening in the
    SSPX but they do not recognize it as such.

    They saw the liberalizing of the upper hierarchy who "hiked up their
    cassocks" as +W says, "grooving" to the unclean spirit of Vat.II.  And
    now they see the abominable General Chapter with its Modernist 6
    Conditions, and the indefensible and heretical AFD (Doctrinal
    Declaration, a.k.a. mistakenly called the 'preamble' of +Fellay), and
    they make excuses for it.  "There was no 'deal' so everything's okay."



    Quote

    And THAT is what the good Bishop W and his priest-followers are up against. The same attitude in the laity as existed when the devil struck with Vat.II





    I agree:  it's the same attitude -- especially under the guise of
    "obedience." Just be careful not to make the mistake of thinking that
    it's all our fault and the pastors are not responsible for their
    negligence - or worse, for their deliberate planning and execution of
    this Modernism in progress.

    In the SSPX, these are priests who were formed and trained to be
    warriors against Modernism.  Now some (like the Menzingen-
    denizens) have become it's friend?  


    Turncoats.  Traitors.



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8274/-691
    • Gender: Male
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #6 on: June 06, 2013, 11:13:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Frances

    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."



    Quote

    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?  


    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8274/-691
    • Gender: Male
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #7 on: June 06, 2013, 11:22:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .


    The Newmass was never promulgated.

    It was not legitimately promulgated;

    Nor was it otherwise promulgated.





    Very Important Principle:

    The Newmass was never promulgated.







    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Napoli

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 716
    • Reputation: +707/-0
    • Gender: Male
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #8 on: June 06, 2013, 05:02:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks Neil. Very good article.
    Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12678
    • Reputation: +5008/-807
    • Gender: Male
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #9 on: June 06, 2013, 09:03:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    .


    The Newmass was never promulgated.

    It was not legitimately promulgated;

    Nor was it otherwise promulgated.





    Very Important Principle:

    The Newmass was never promulgated.






    Don't sugar coat it Neil for crying out loud - come right out and say what you mean! lol

    I have not had the chance to reply to this subject but will at some point.

    In the Great Sacrilege, Fr. Wathen has a chapter called: "The Act" - at least I think that's the right chapter - anyway, when I get some time, I'll read it again and see if there's anything worth posting out of it -- -- I think "the act" was about how the NOM was promulgated and IIRC, he docuмents the same thing - it was never legitimately promulgated to the universal Church.

    Now, if you read  This link, you will find that the good Brother Alexis Bugnolo - who at first set out to prove the NOM actually was legally promulgated and therefore proving Fr. Wathen was wrong - well, God bless the good Brother because in the end, he ended up agreeing with Fr. Wathen.


     


     
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1520
    • Reputation: +616/-116
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #10 on: June 06, 2013, 09:35:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8274/-691
    • Gender: Male
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #11 on: June 07, 2013, 02:41:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .


    This topic caught me by surprise.  I was missing the April
    CFN so I picked up an extra copy on Sunday, and paging
    through it I was surprised to find this article.  And then to
    top it off, that was the same day that Fr. Kramer was
    giving his talk at the London Resistance Conference.

    So it seemed like too much for coincidence, you know?  I
    did not plan it this way.  This happened to me.  

    Now I'm all the more sensitized to the issue.  I showed my
    priest this little 3 x 5 card I have with the Recusant's two
    paragraphs on it, 1988 and 2012 versions of the AFD III.7,
    and "Spot the Difference!" on the top on each side.

    Fr. told me that it was never promulgated at all, so the
    one word "legitimately" is a moot point!  

    Now I have to go back and see what all these guys say
    who told me that the difference was not important.  Let's
    see if they think that saying it was "promulgated" or not
    isn't important, either.  

    You know, at some point, the Faith isn't really important.
    What then?  It doesn't matter?  If you notice then you're
    being "hateful?"

    There were no small number of Catholic martyrs who went
    to their death because they refused to put one grain of
    incense into the pagan temple's little burning fire.

    How may of today's Catholics would say 'it doesn't matter?'

    I had a sister-in-law a few years ago ask me if I thought
    she should put some incense in her inlaw's Buddhist temple
    ceremony (her husband is Buddhist), and I told her "No."
    She said, "Well, can't I just go stand there while my
    husband puts the incense in the fire?"  I said, "NO."  

    She thought I was being really 'extremist' and 'intolerant.'

    That was about 15 years ago, before all this SSPX trouble
    started.  




    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8274/-691
    • Gender: Male
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #12 on: June 07, 2013, 02:56:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: donkath
    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.



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Napoli

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 716
    • Reputation: +707/-0
    • Gender: Male
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #13 on: June 07, 2013, 02:59:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not liking the fact that I like something is wrong. Not liking an opinion I present is legitimate. The first is infringing on my freedom. The second is exercising your freedom. In other words, just mean.

    I still like your article Neil.

    Pax
    Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18178
    • Reputation: +8274/-691
    • Gender: Male
    The Newmass was never promulgated - legitimately or otherwise
    « Reply #14 on: June 07, 2013, 04:11:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: donkath
    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.



    Quote from: Napoli


    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.


    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.