Did you even understand what I posted?  Evdiently not.

Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the MAJOR.  In refusing to commit entirely to the SV conclusion, he was wavering on the MINOR of the syllogism above, not the MAJOR.  Those of you who reject the MAJOR are promoting a heretical view of the Church and you can't try to hide behind Archbishop Lefebvre there because he never rejected the MAJOR.  Because +Lefebvre never committed to the SV conclusion, you try to pretend that the Archbishop backs your heretical rejection of the MAJOR above ... but then I don't expect you to understand this, as you clearly showed ignorance about that point in this response.

Your Minor is wrong. Your claiming that the pope promulgated the NOM and made it the ordinary rite as a private person? Impossible.

Yes, command and promulgation are two different things. You are arguing that it was never made law, at least not through approved mechanisims or was missing requirements prescribe by Canon Law. However, some would disagree.



Bishop Fellay 2012 Doctrinal Preamble

http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/uploads/1/0/3/2/10321570/_bishop_fellays_doctrinal_preamble.pdf
 
7. 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 and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
 


Archbishop Lefebvre 1988 Protocol
 
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-05B.htm
 
◄ 1988 ►d)    Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
 
 

Fr. Cekada
 
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/P6Illegally.pdf
 
What is “Promulgation”? To “promulgate” a law means nothing more than to announce it publicly. The essence of promulgation is the public proposal of a law to the community by the lawmaker himself, or on his authority, so that the will of the lawmaker to impose an obligation can become known to his subjects. The Code of Canon Law simply says: “Laws enacted by the Holy See are promulgated by their publication in the official commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless in particular cases another mode of promulgation is prescribed.” This is all that the Code requires and it suffices to make known the will of the legislator, the pope.

Both premises are correct.  The conclusion does not follow the premises.

Major:  The Catholic Church cannot destroy the Faith.  The pope cannot destroy the Faith when he speaks ex cathedra.  The pope can destroy the Faith when speaking or acting as a private person.

Minor:  V2 popes have only destroyed the Faith when speaking or acting as private persons.

Conclusion:  V2 popes can be legitimate popes.

Just stop.  You don't know what you're talking about.  What you're doing is distinguishing the MAJOR, so you're not holding that both premises are correct.

Uhm, no, holding an Ecuмenical Council and promulgating a new Rite of Public worship (Mass and Sacraments) are not the pope speaking or acting as a "private person".  This is the same idiocy as when you claimed that an Ecuмenical Council is not Magisterium.

Private person would be when Bergoglio is answering question on his airplane or spouting heresies to Scalfari.

You can argue that the teaching of V2 was not infallible, i.e. were just merely authentic Magisterium but not that it was not Magisterium.  You can argue the same about the Pope's actions, but to claim that V2 and the NOM were the Pope acting as private person (vs. in his official capacity as pope) is utterly absurd.

It's clear that NIFH is not only new to this forum, but new to Tradition.

You are evading.

An Ecuмenical Council is Extraordinary Magisterium.  How can Vatican II be an Ecuмenical Council if it says about itself that it is not binding?

Imagine your manager at McDonald's orders you to dye your hair green.  When you laugh, he gives you a very official-looking paper, with a McDonald's logo and his official signature.  He is acting as a private person, trying to invoke an authority that has not been given him.

Your coworker pipes in, "This proves he's not our manager!"  He instinctively senses a problem, but his assessment is way off.  God bless him.