Saying the new mass was legitimately promulgated is NOT THE SAME THING as saying it’s a legitimate (ie holy, valid, licit) rite.  I appreciate your passion but your argument is wrong.  You’re bending the truth here. 

I appreciate the distinction you are trying to make, and I truly want to stay grounded in what is true and clear.

But here is what I keep coming back to. If the New Mass was truly and officially promulgated by the Church in a legitimate way, then we are saying the Church has the authority to give a rite that leads souls to lose the Faith.

The reason why I keep saying it's a legal debate is because God allows heretics to use their HUMAN REASON to destroy the church, and they (as does the devil) use LEGAL tactics to confuse.  Just as the Scribes and Pharisees did, which Christ condemned.

Here's my opinion (from a legal perspective...it's the only perspective which I have found which explains the "how" of this crisis.  The "why" did God allow a, b, or c is only known to Him):
a.  Quo Primum condemns the use, attendance or support of ANY OTHER RITE, besides the True Rite (i.e. 1955/62 missal).
b.  But...Quo Primum did not condemn the creation of a new rite, only that it could not be used.
c.  This is a loophole which the Modernists exploited.
d.  They created a new rite, and knew that it couldn't be used, attended or supported but...they used peer pressure and half-truths to shove it down the people's throats.
e.  Who would create something they knew was illegal?  Those who don't care about the law, but only about propaganda and lies.

f.  The other loophole they used...instead of new-rome officially commanding the new mass to be said/attended, they had the Bishops say it was commanded.
g.  See the diabolical deception?  The Bishops/priests would say that the new mass was commanded, while new-rome never has said this.
h.  No V2 pope or roman official has ever said that ignoring, critiquing and rejecting the new mass is a sin.  Not one person ever.  Only the Bishops in dioceses have said this.
i.  This is the legal trickery that the modern-day Scribes/Modernists used.

That would contradict the Church’s indefectibility and holiness. The Church cannot give her children poison. She cannot lead souls into confusion and ruin through her official acts.

Technically speaking, the new mass is not commanded, nor obligated, nor is it necessary for salvation.  So it did not come from the Church, in an official sense.

This is why the phrase “legitimately promulgated” cannot be separated from the spiritual consequences of the rite itself. If a rite was promulgated and yet destroys the Faith, then the problem lies at the root. That phrase is not just legal. It is doctrinal in effect. It conditions souls to accept the reform and the errors behind it.

This is where the phrase in Scripture to be "wise as serpents" comes into play.  V2 and the new mass are not obligatory for salvation.  They are optional, both legally and doctrinally.  If people accept such, it's because they were duped.  If they were duped until their death, then they didn't pray enough.  Because plenty of Trads were formerly novus ordo and 'woke up'.  God will awaken those who have good will.  For those that do not, or do not pray enough (i.e. lukewarm), God will leave them to their own choices.

This is the purpose of the Crisis.  To separate the good from the lukewarm.  God has allowed the Modernists to play legal mind games.  Plenty of simple-minded folk have seen through the lies and errors.  God enlightens ALL those who wish to accept the Truth; this is infallible.

Thank you for the detailed reply. I respect that you are trying to defend the Church’s indefectibility. That must remain the guiding principle.

But I would ask this with all sincerity. If the New Mass was never officially imposed by the Church, why did +Archbishop Lefebvre reject it so completely? The answer is not just about legality. He was rejecting what he called the Conciliar Church, which had broken with Catholic Tradition and created a new rite that endangers souls.

Right.  The Modernists used legal trickery to destroy souls by introducing a non-obligatory, non-Traditional, bastard rite.

The question then becomes this. If the New Mass did not come from the true Church in the proper sense, how can we accept the phrase “legitimately promulgated”? That is the phrase 

Again, the new mass was legally promulgated.  Paul6 legally (with proper authority), promulgated (created a law and a new rite).  Technically, this was allowed, by law.

Now, can anyone USE this rite?  No, not per Quo Primum.

The debate around the new mass being legitimate did not start in 2012.  I’m sorry, people didn’t suddenly accept new-Rome's lies in 2012.  I get that the 2012 Docuмent is a big problem, but you’re ignoring the 40 years prior to this.  And you’re ignoring the “Benedict motu” effect which started in 2005.  If anything, the lifting of the excommunications by new/Rome made more of an impression on the sspx laity than anything else.  

How old were you in 2005?  “Oh, Pope Benedict freed the Latin mass!”   This was the sentimental garbage going around everywhere.  

I seriously doubt most sspx have even read the 2012 docuмent.  You’re giving it much too much importance.  As far as laity.  

It may have had more of an effect on the priests in the sspx, since they had to vote on it.  That, I’ll grant.  

But most people haven’t read that docuмent.  If they left Tradition, they did so because of the media propaganda which kept yelling that Benedict was bringing back Tradition.  

Saying the new mass was legitimately promulgated is NOT THE SAME THING as saying it’s a legitimate (ie holy, valid, licit) rite.  I appreciate your passion but your argument is wrong.  You’re bending the truth here.

Yes, that is the point. I think +Fellay was, as a liberal that he is, trying to do a play on words. To the SSPX audience, he meant the NOM was LEGALLY promulgated. To the Roman audience, it was meant as "the NOM is in itself valid and good". Fellay thinks he is a diplomat, but Rome has 2,000 years experience, and was not fooled. 

This is one of the reasons why they added something to the AFD (April 15 Declaration), and Fellay said he could not in conscience sign the modified docuмent. The other reason was to allow him to save face, after the Letters of the Bishops were leaked on May 10 2012.When, following the huge reactions inside the SSPX after the leak, Cardinal Levada saw the division among our bishops, he declared that the case of each SSPX bishop would be dealt separately. When Fr. Peter Scott, who was head of the New Hamburg school, saw this Levada declaration (May 16, 2012), he said that meant there would be no agreement in June. Sure enough, Rome modified the AFD to help Fellay save face by saying he could not in conscience sign the new version.


When the AFD was leaked on the internet for the general public (March 09, 2013), it made a big splash on the Internet. The same day, Father Girouard sent a commentary against it to a French website, and the next day he read the English translation of his comments from the pulpit in his Langley (BC) parish.

Three days later, he was suspended from public ministry, and ordered to move to Montreal HQ, where he would not be allowed to speak on these issues even in private. Just like they had done to Fr. Damian Fox in July 2012, and they brainwashed him and after a year sent him back to Australia. Knowing all this, and on the advice of H.E. Bp Williamson, Father refused the transfer and started the Aldergrove parish.

Following the negative reactions after the AFD was leaked on the internet, +Fellay, at a priests meeting in France, said that he went back to Rome and told Cardinal Levada that his original AFD was not anymore on the table. He told the priests that the AFD was not anymore an official policy of the SSPX. This placated most priests, but the fact remains that Fellay is a double-faced liberal.  In 2018, he was replaced by Paglarani as Gen Sup, but then he was given the new position of Councillor General. That's how hypocrisy is rewarded. That is also the sign the Neo-SSPX is still seeking a full integration to Official Rome.

As for Fr. Girouard, since his expulsion from the Neo-SSPX, he has lived 6 years in a crammy basement suite, with paper-thin walls. In 2019, he was able to buy a mobile home. Still it is a far cry from the SSPX living conditions.He lives alone, doing his own cooking, and doing his house chores. His survival depends on donations from people on his email list, with absolutely no financial security. 

He told me that if he would have remained silent, he would live in a nice big house, with full financial security for now and his old age. He would have plenty of friendly colleagues. He would have good meals. His vacations would be paid for. He could travel to all the houses of the SSPX, and be received with honor and friendship, and for free all over the world. After his death, a notice would be sent out to all SSPX priests, ordering them all to say a RIP Mass for him. Today, that would be about 700 Requiem Masses for his soul within a week! Now, he has foregone all these advantages, and he is battered left and right by the Hewko and Pfeiffer and Sede people. And he also had to endure much trials and opposition from his own parishioners over the years. Most left him, actually. And I do not speak about the stress and the fatigues of his missionary trips!

And then you ask yourselves why so few SSPX priests left and joined the Resistance? They would be crazy to do so. Yet, Father told me, many times, that even if everybody left him, he could not in conscience go back, unless the SSPX goes back on track. He remains faithful to his June 2013 Mission Statement.

He knows people on Cathinfo are well aware of all aspects of the Crisis of the Church and of the Neo-SSPX. Just look at all the ressources available on Cathinfo! So he has no need to repeat everything over and over again. And when he thinks a sermon that explains the texts of the Mass could benefit more than his usual group, he asks me to put it on Cathinfo. Next thing you know, the Hewkites and Pfeifferites and Sedevacs attack him! What kind of world is this?

Fortunately for Father's sanity, he receives every week messages of encouragement, and many people tell him his sermons are helping them a lot. And so, he continues. He knows you cannot please everybody.

[Fr. Girouard] told me that if he would have remained silent, he would live in a nice big house, with full financial security for now and his old age. He would have plenty of friendly colleagues. He would have good meals. His vacations would be paid for. He could travel to all the houses of the SSPX, and be received with honor and friendship, and for free all over the world. After his death, a notice would be sent out to all SSPX priests, ordering them all to say a RIP Mass for him. Today, that would be about 700 Requiem Masses for his soul within a week! Now, he has foregone all these advantages, and he is battered left and right by the Hewko and Pfeiffer and Sede people. And he also had to endure much trials and opposition from his own parishioners over the years. Most left him, actually. And I do not speak about the stress and the fatigues of his missionary trips!

And then you ask yourselves why so few SSPX priests left and joined the Resistance? They would be crazy to do so. Yet, Father told me, many times, that even if everybody left him, he could not in conscience go back, unless the SSPX goes back on track. He remains faithful to his June 2013 Mission Statement.

This is the reality which must not be forgotten. Priests are human beings, and most are weak and willing to compromise. They like friends, comfort, security, fun, and all those things. It's hard to be a hero, to practice heroic virtue. But what does God want of each one of us? That is the only important question.

Which path would you WISH you had taken, when you find yourself on your deathbed, on the brink of Eternity?

I'd take Fr. Girouard's path 7 days a week, and twice on Sunday. THAT is the sure path.

But here is something to consider. If those 700 SSPX priests offered Mass for a hypothetical, compromised Fr. Girouard's soul, don't you suppose Our Lady would take care of the real Fr. Girouard (during life and after death), since in reality he made a much BETTER choice, one more OBJECTIVELY PLEASING TO GOD? Do you think God will be outdone in generosity?

I can't imagine a person making a heroic/superior/God-focused decision resulting in ANY bad consequences for one's soul, or one's eternity.

700 Tridentine Masses offered for a soul is great, but Our Lady's special mantle of care and protection has to be worth more. She will arrange for Father's holy death and short purgatory PERSONALLY.

Serving God single-mindedly, as the saints did, is the best and only path to true happiness, both in this life and in the next.

of having to worship in a rented hall; of having to set-up the chairs, the "altar", the statues, and then wrap everything up before leaving. He knew they would miss nicer ceremonies and singing, as well as so many friends.

There is so much to suffer in this situation; it's a shame this suffering has to be added on to the top of the pile.

It's a shame no one has property to set up a permanent, dedicated chapel, however humble. We're talking converted basement, garage, guest room, outbuilding, trailer, storage building, etc. Humble can be quite cozy, but what's important is that its "ours", the homebase for the congregation, a spiritual home of sorts. And ceremonies/singing just require a priest and some parishioners willing or able to sing. Our tiny chapel has a great choir, despite small numbers.

Fortunately for Father's sanity, he receives every week messages of encouragement, and many people tell him his sermons are helping them a lot. And so, he continues. He knows you cannot please everybody.

I understand that Fr. Girouard has a zero online presence, but if he could see his way to providing his sermons online every now and then, I would be extremely grateful. I cannot attend the TLM at all now due to the distance that must be traveled, and would very much appreciate Father's edifying sermons.