CathInfo.com

Bishop Fellay Endorsed “Fraud, Schism, and Heresy” according to Fr. Paul Kramer:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/06/14/bishop-fellay-endorsed-fraud-schism-and-heresy-according-to-fr-paul-kramer/

Content:




Bishop Fellay Endorsed “Fraud, Schism, and Heresy” according to Fr. Paul Kramer
Jun 14, 2013

At the conference in London, England held on June 1 and 2, 2013 and sponsored by The Recusant Newsletter, Fr. Paul Kramer gave a conference on the Sunday.  In this conference, he spoke about the legitimacy of the promulgation of the New Rite of Mass under Pope Paul VI.  Without naming Bishop Fellay, Fr. Paul Kramer stated that to say that the New Rite of Mass was “legitimately promulgated” is an act, objectively speaking, of “fraud, schism, and heresy”.  The reference was directly made to the Doctrinal Declaration (or Preamble as some people call it) of Bishop Fellay dated April 15, 2012 and submitted to Rome.  Here is a link to the relevant extract of that conference:

 

Extract of Conference of Fr. Paul Kramer

 

To get the full context of the conference, you may listen to it at the link below:

 

Full Conference of Fr. Paul Kramer




In this talk, Fr. Kramer covers the same material that he was quoted
saying in the April CFN article that I used in THIS THREAD two weeks
ago, to which only three members have responded:  Donkath, Napoli
and Stubborn.

He showed how the Newmass was never promulgated. There was a
docuмent titled "Promulgation" but it contains no promulgation, and it
ends with a so-called promulgation by another bishop, which would be
superfluous if Pope Paul VI had already promulgated it, which proves
that Paul VI did not promulgate the Newmass, NOR could he have done
so.  The Newmass did not come from Tradition, is not part of the
received and approved liturgical rites of the Church, and was drawn up
entirely by a team of heretics and non-Catholics.

As Canon Gregorius Hesse (RIP) said so well some 15 years ago, what
Pope Paul VI "of infelicitous memory" said (which is misconstrued as his
"promulgation of the Newmass" because of the title at the top of the page)
was, basically, "I like this book."  The book was the Novus Ordo missal.

So, it was never promulgated, and to say it was is a lie.  Therefore, to
say that it was "legitimately promulgated," as B. Fellay says in his AFD,
is a DOUBLE lie, or, as Fr. Kramer says, "fraud, schism and heresy."

Over on another forum, the argument was given that legitimately promulgated doesn't mean licit.  

 

Neo-SSPXers defense of Fellay and co. is tantamount to the neotrads and neocats defense of VII and the new mass.  They have to deny objective reality in order to hold their position.  "Subsistit in doesn't mean 'subsits in!'"  Liberals.  Pathetic.

I want to turn everyone's attention to this very bizarre incident.

This happened over at SD and it carries on yet.

Here are half-links to the pertinent posts (you'll have to supply the rest of the URL yourselves, as the system here blocks the name):

.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47166#msg47166
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47178#msg47178
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47304#msg47304
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47313#msg47313
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47647#msg47647
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47648#msg47648
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47893#msg47893
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47894#msg47894 (this one is especially outrageous)
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg48098#msg48098

It really is unbelievable that some random guy on the Internet thinks he is an higher authority on the meaning of words than the OED!  But this is par for the course in a defense of +Fellay's (truly indefensible) docuмent.