Author Topic: New Rite of Mass "Legitimately" Promulgated (Read 6284 times)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #15 on:** June 14, 2013, 07:08:34 AM »

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.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #16 on:** June 14, 2013, 09:50:40 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

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."

Sigismund · « **Reply #17 on:** June 14, 2013, 01:37:21 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

A legal bastard ?

Well, a valid bastard anyway. :wink:

tmw89 · « **Reply #18 on:** June 15, 2013, 09:12:22 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

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.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #19 on:** June 15, 2013, 10:17:30 AM »

Quote from: tmw89

Quote from: Mithrandylan
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.

It would be nice if you could mention what you mean by SD and OED.

A search for .com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47166#msg47166
does not match any docuмents on the Internet.

SD means South Dakota, San Diego, or SandRidge Energy, Inc. (NYSE).

OED is Oxford English Dictionary.

tmw89 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 15, 2013, 10:22:18 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

It would be nice if you could mention what you mean by SD and OED.

A search for .com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47166#msg47166
does not match any docuмents on the Internet.

SD means South Dakota, San Diego, or SandRidge Energy, Inc. (NYSE).

OED is Oxford English Dictionary.

Sorry there, Neil - SD stands for the name of the forum S U S C I P E D O M I N E .com (CathInfo auto-redacts the name to "s").

PatrickG · « **Reply #21 on:** June 15, 2013, 10:28:09 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

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.

Bingo. I wish I could think of another example - where one word introduces a whole can of worms of objectionable statements. I was once told that 'subsistit in' meant the same thing as 'est' which even I, never the most proficient Latinist, can spot the error in. 'Legitimately promulgated' is rubbish, as if the New Mass is a) valid (which it is) and b) licit (which it ain't, as the Church can't promulgate anything sinful) then logically c) the New Mass is not sinful.

A single word destroys the whole reason there is such a thing as the SSPX - if traditionalism was just a sentimental attachment to the old Mass because it's pretty, and the New Mass was as good, then the hardest deal Rome made would be preferable to where the Resistance is now.

If the New Mass legitimately promulgated, then it's equal to the Tridentine. Then there is no crisis in the Church (ooh! ooh! Those nice Council Fathers were only misinterpreted, just as Saint Benedict XVI says!) and you and I might as well link arms and dance into the nearest NO Church and effusively praise Paul VI.

tmw89 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 15, 2013, 10:43:06 AM »

Quote from: PatrickG

Quote from: Mithrandylan
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.

Bingo. I wish I could think of another example - where one word introduces a whole can of worms of objectionable statements. I was once told that 'subsistit in' meant the same thing as 'est' which even I, never the most proficient Latinist, can spot the error in. 'Legitimately promulgated' is rubbish, as if the New Mass is a) valid (which it is) and b) licit (which it ain't, as the Church can't promulgate anything sinful) then logically c) the New Mass is not sinful.

A single word destroys the whole reason there is such a thing as the SSPX - if traditionalism was just a sentimental attachment to the old Mass because it's pretty, and the New Mass was as good, then the hardest deal Rome made would be preferable to where the Resistance is now.

If the New Mass legitimately promulgated, then it's equal to the Tridentine. Then there is no crisis in the Church (ooh! ooh! Those nice Council Fathers were only misinterpreted, just as Saint Benedict XVI says!) and you and I might as well link arms and dance into the nearest NO Church and effusively praise Paul VI.

Thumbed-up.

As I mentioned in my latest post on the thread over at SD: If something is "legitimately promulgated" by the Church, it must be licit. If it isn't licit, then it wasn't legitimately promulgated. I don't think there's any way around that.

And what all of us need to keep in the front of our minds when considering the Novus Ordo sect is that they maintain their bastard rite as the "ordinary forum" of their liturgy, while giving second place to a truncated version (the '62 ed) of the True Mass.

(to say nothing at all about the issues with their other "sacraments" :shocked: )

Stubborn · « **Reply #23 on:** June 15, 2013, 12:37:19 PM »

Quote from: tmw89

Quote from: Mithrandylan
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.

Hi tmw89 and by all means - welcome!!

Next time, post the whole link - we can click "quote" on your post and the entire link will be there - just not on the published post.

tmw89 · « **Reply #24 on:** June 15, 2013, 02:05:21 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Hi tmw89 and by all means - welcome!!

Next time, post the whole link - we can click "quote" on your post and the entire link will be there - just not on the published post.

Thanks for the welcome and the pointer, Stubborn!

(edit - now the quote stuffs refuses to work for this post - am I lucky or what?)

Stubborn · « **Reply #25 on:** June 15, 2013, 03:04:28 PM »

Quote from: tmw89

Quote from: Stubborn

Hi tmw89 and by all means - welcome!!

Next time, post the whole link - we can click "quote" on your post and the entire link will be there - just not on the published post.

Thanks for the welcome and the pointer, Stubborn!

(edit - now the quote stuffs refuses to work for this post - am I lucky or what?)

Yes, this forum has that particular quirk - quite random to boot.

But I should have demonstrated:

http://www.s.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47894#msg47894

If you go to quote this post, you should see the whole link - just copy and paste. :cheers:

Stubborn · « **Reply #26 on:** June 15, 2013, 03:06:35 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: tmw89
Quote from: Stubborn

Hi tmw89 and by all means - welcome!!

Next time, post the whole link - we can click "quote" on your post and the entire link will be there - just not on the published post.

Thanks for the welcome and the pointer, Stubborn!

(edit - now the quote stuffs refuses to work for this post - am I lucky or what?)

Yes, this forum has that particular quirk - quite random to boot.

But I should have demonstrated:

http://www.s.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47894#msg47894

If you go to quote this post, you should see the whole link - just copy and paste. :cheers:

Oops, I guess Matthew fixed that - I stand corrected - quoting does not work either any longer.

wallflower · « **Reply #27 on:** June 15, 2013, 03:58:20 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

«In the ecstasy of November 4, 1880 Mary - Julie describes us the martyrdom of the pope: «The voice of the Church, under a veiled sigh, comes to make doors broken of my soul the echo of his dying voice sound. The supreme Pontiff launches an agonizing speech toward his people, toward children of which he is the Father. It is a sword for my soul... I see of white birds to carry away in their beak his blood and of shreds of his flesh. I see the hand of Peter breakthrough by the nail as the one of GOD. I see his clothes of ceremony pulled in shreds, clothes of which he dresses his dignity to make take down GOD on the altar. I see all it in my sun. Oh ! that I suffer ! »[/i]

I wonder if this is metaphorical. We see the office of the Pope being torn down as we speak.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #28 on:** June 15, 2013, 04:54:05 PM »

.

Your post would have looked like this if you had checked the box - see below:

Quote from: tmw89

Quote from: Stubborn

Hi tmw89 and by all means - welcome!!

Next time, post the whole link - we can click "quote" on your post and the entire link will be there - just not on the published post.

Thanks for the welcome and the pointer, Stubborn!

(edit - now the quote stuffs refuses to work for this post - am I lucky or what?)

Welcome to CI, tmw89!

Your posts are already very helpful.

In case you'd like to fix that "quote stuffs" problem, here is a pointer:

When you use the Preview button (which is ALWAYS a good idea!) and
your post comes up all codes and/or missing quote boxes and/or
looking terrible and upsetting to you, it is generally because there is
one or more characters out of place or improper in the quote codes of
the post you submitted to preview.

You can fix the codes by making sure every [ quote ] (without the spaces)
is followed by exactly one [/ quote ] (no spaces), among other things, but
the one item that you'll overlook in all likelihood is that you also have to
check the box to the left of "Format MbCode?" -because when your
Preview yields a dysfunctional screen that box gets unchecked by the
system.

There is more to this but let me know if you need it.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #29 on:** June 15, 2013, 05:01:43 PM »

.

Okay, now I'm getting somewhere.................

Source = http://www.su scipe do mi ne. com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47894#msg47894 [w/o spaces]

Offline tmw89

Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2253
Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: SSPX: Branded!
« Reply #113 on: June 12, 2013, 07:00:06 AM »
Quote from: trentcath on June 12, 2013, 06:39:10 AM

b) a person could speak of a parliament legitimately promulgating a law, as in the right procedures were taken to promulgate it, but still say the law was illicit, for example contrary to international obligations or to God's law. That's one illustration of the reality that legitimately promulgating and licit do not mean the same thing.

The only problem is - based on the definitions - it looks like you think you're an higher authority to define words than the OED.

Because if that wasn't the case, you'd see that the two words (at least in English) are equivalent.

Can you cite any source to support your understanding of the distinction between the terms, to show your position is more than private opinion?
Logged
Quote from: Bishop Williamson

The "promise to respect" as Church law the New Code of Canon Law is to respect a number of supposed laws directly contrary to Church doctrine.

---

COMING SOON: A new Trad forum featuring Catholic books, information, and discussion!