Author Topic: Fr. P. Kramer, June 2, 2013, London Resistance meeting - New Mass illegitimate (Read 1093 times)

Twice dyed · « **on:** September 28, 2025, 09:03:41 PM »

From an old The Recusant newsletter, Issue 36, Sept 2013 AD.
Transcribed from an excellent talk given at the Resistance conference in London, 2nd June 2013. Incomplete. From YouTube. (no longer available).
Good solid arguments, simple conclusion.
****
Fr. Paul Kramer on the New Mass

It is the teaching of the Popes and it has been the constant teaching of the Church that the legitimate growth of the liturgical rites, the legitimate development of the rites – because from the time of the Apostles up until the Middle Ages and down through the centuries and through the millennia, there has been a development, a growth of the liturgy, like the acorn that grows into the tree - it is an organic development. And the Popes have taught that this kind of organic development is the only legitimate development of liturgy, so that the rite is preserved, it grows as one organism: as the sapling grows into a great tree, it is the self-same organism. Even the Second Vatican Council, speaking on liturgy spoke of the necessity of organic development.

But when the lunatics took over the asylum, it's like they wanted to hatch a test-tube baby and let it grow to adulthood. But the only problem with that is it takes too long, because the Revolution called for instant change. So they threw away the test-tube and they built a robot. And they called that an 'organic development.'

The men who created the Novus Ordo of Mass, the members of that commission called the 'Concilium' set up by Pope Paul VI to fabricate the new liturgy - and fabricate they did! - one of the principal fabricators of the new rite of Mass was a man by the name of Fr. Joseph Gelineau. And he wrote quite explicitly: "The Roman Rite has been destroyed!" Of course, he knew. Who could know better than one of the men who destroyed it himself? It is not the Roman Rite. There is some vestige of it left, but they say the truth, "the Roman Rite longer exists. It has been destroyed."

Pope Paul VI. on 19th November 1969 announced that there would be introduced into the liturgy of the Latin Church a new rite of Mass. No, this would not be some organic, fine-tuned or adaptation of the Roman Rite. No. It is a new rite of Mass. It is no longer Roman Rite of Mass. And there is a problem there, because the dogma of the Faith infallibly teaches that this cannot be done.

The Modernist objection I always hear is: "No, that's discipline, not dogma. Liturgy is discipline, not dogma." Well, the discipline of the Church must be conducted according to the guidelines of dogma insofar as dogma lays down those guidelines concerning the liturgy. So we see already from the time of Pope St. Agatho, the Popes taking a solemn oath to preserve the liturgy of the Church, undiminished, unaltered. And that became even more solemnly formalised in the Profession to be made by the Pope prescribed by the Ecuмenical Council of Constance in Session XXXIX. And Session XXXIX explains that, since the Pope has so great a power over the faithful, he must solemnly profess that he's going to keep the Faith unaltered and the liturgical rites to be preserved unaltered. That the Church is 'bound' to the received and approved rites, the Traditional Rites. The whole Church: not just the priests, not just the faithful, not just the bishops, the Cardinals. the Pope - the whole Church is bound, by the law of God defined by the Church infallibly, to the Traditional Rites. That's why the Popes for so many centuries swore that they would not dilute or change the Sacred Liturgy. And the Council of Constance declared infallibly that the Church is bound to the Traditional Rites. They cannot be done away with, they cannot be reformed into new rites. If anyone says that they can be reformed into new rites, or that they can be dispensed with, or that they can be despised, that is declared by the Church to be a heresy.

"Receptos quoque et approbatos Ecclesiae catholicae ritus in supradictorum omnium Sacramentorum solemni administratione recipio et admitto."
[I also receive and admit the accepted and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments. "]

That is the Tridentine Profession of Faith. This is the Profession of Faith of 13th November,1564, a solemn Profession of Faith issued by Pope Pius IV in the Bull 'Iunctum Nobis' where the adherence to the Traditional Rites is solemnly professed. On this dogmatic, doctrinal basis therefore, we have the formulation of the dogmatic Canon, in Session VII, Canon XIII of the Council of Trent:

'Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbatos Ecclesiae catholicae ritus in sollemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcuмque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit! "

So what the solemn anathema declares to be a heresy is for anyone to say that "the Traditional Rites, the received and approved Rites customarily used in the solemn administration of sacraments, may be despised" - well, the Rites are certainly despised in our own time! - "or that they can be freely omitted by the ministers," as if it becomes a matter of preference: The Novus Ordo is alright! We prefer the Old Rite, but we'll consider the Novus Ordo legitimate; it's been legitimately promulgated, so it's alright, we have no objection to it. Let the rest of the Church use the New Rite, but we have our emotional attachment to the Old Rite so we want to keep to that... Anyone who says that, according to this dogmatic Canon of the Crurch, falls into heresy.

"...aut in novos alios per quemcuмque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse." 'Or if any ecclesiastical pastor, whosoever' - and considering that the Church has already defined that the entire Church, including the Pope, is bound to the Traditional Rites, the Council of Trent's decree is to be understood according to the dogmatic pronouncements of the past, the constant dogmatic teaching of the Church, that "any pastor of churches whosoever" is to be understood as including the Pope himself, because of the profession of the Council of Constance.

Whenever I quote this Canon, I'm always told by some Modernist who thinks himself to be enlightened: "Well, that's just your interpretation. That just refers to the hierarchy under the Pope. Since the Pope has the authority to regulate the liturgy, it doesn't apply to him."

Well no, sorry dear Modernist, but the Church has already defined that the Pope principally, more than anybody else the Pope is bound to the Traditional Rites. That's the Council of Constance. And so this is the Council of Trent saying that if anyone says that the Traditional Rites can be changed into New Rites, that proposition is heresy. And so it has constantly been taught in the Church, in the most approved teaching of the greatest theologians in the history of the Church, men like Juan de Torquemada, who was the Papal theologian of Pope Eugenius IV and he was officially the theologian of the Ecuмenical Council of Florence, and Francisco Suarez after him, the excellent and pious doctor, explained that those who would carry out in practice that heretical proposition of changing the Rites, that if the Pope were to change the Rites, then the Pope himself would fall into schism. It is essentially a schismatic act. And it is rooted in heresy, the solemnly declared heresy that it is permissible to change the Traditional Rites into new rites: that is heresy. And what did Pope Paul VI declare in 1969? "In November of this year, there will be introduced into the Latin liturgy of the Church a New Rite of Mass."

So then the Modernist will point out: "Well, it is the grace of office that would preserve the Pope from promulgating for the whole Church an illicit rite. It cannot be!" But one who would say this is either dishonest or has not carefully read the docuмent 'Missale Romanum' of Pope Paul VI. Because in 'Missale Romanum' of Pope Paul VI, we see the title "promulgation" - promulgation. What is the essence of law? Promulgation is one of the essential characteristics of what constitutes a law. If there's no promulgation, there's no law. The docuмent is lacking the form and substance of promulgation. The Missal of Paul VI was
never promulgated by Paul VI.

You had the solemn promulgation of the Roman Missal by St. Pius V, and there it is explicitly stated that this Missal is to be used by these subjects, with those exceptions and all other Missals are to be utterly discarded. So: WHO is subject to the law, WHAT exactly is being bound in conscience, with statutory force of law: that is all spelled out explicitly in the most tersely worded, clear legal Latin imaginable. That is promulgation. It's not a law if it's not perceptive in its wording. If the law does not command something under obligation and penalty, it does not have the force of law. It's simply not a law. And without that having been formalized and the very substance of the law enacted as binding, you do not have the promulgation of law. You do not have the substance and the form of law, it is lacking.

So Paul VI used the word "promulgation" in the title of a docuмent of a title that doesn't promulgate anything! Read it carefully. Just imagine if Pope Pius XII had been forgetful when he solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption. If you were to have the Papal Bull, setting out to solemnly define the dogma of the Assumption, if you had the entire docuмent from beginning to end exactly as it is worded. But if just that one sentence were left out, where he says:
"By our Apostolic Authority we define and declare that the Blessed Virgin Mary was body and soul assumed into Heaven."
If that line had been left out, it wouldn't be a defined dogma of the Faith. Even if the title at the top of the page says that this is a dogmatic definition, there's no dogmatic definition in the docuмent if that line is left out. The critical line has to be there! Without it, there is just no definition, and likewise with the promulgation, that clause which says: "By Our Apostolic Authority, we establish and decree that this Missal is henceforth to be used in the churches of the Roman Rite" - something like that does not appear at all.

What Paul VI did was, he used a deceptive formula. He did something. "What we have decreed in this docuмent is given the force of law..." What we have decreed - well, what did he decree? Ask the question. "What we have decreed..." What have you decreed, Pope Montini? Well, he decreed two things. He decreed that three new Eucharistic Prayers are to be added to this Missal. And he decreed that there is one formula of Consecration which is to the same for all four Eucharistic Prayers. So what he decreed simply referred to what was to be published in the Missal. The docuмent is not the promulgation of a rite, it is a publication of a missal. That's all 'Missale Romanum' ever was. He gave force of law to the publishing of the missal of his New Rite of Mass. How does this affect the discipline of the Church? In no way at all!

Were they aware of this defect? Oh! yes they were! Because there's something very anomalous. You open up the Novus Ordo missal and there you see, very proudly displayed, 'Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI, " promulgation," there's the docuмent, it doesn't promulgate anything, it just publishes the missal. It authorized the publication of the missal, that's all.

Turn the page and what do you see? A decree signed by [Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship] Cardinal Gut: "Promulgation..." How is it that the Missal had to be promulgated twice? Well, because the first promulgation was 'colour of law,' it had no form or substance, it was nothing, it was not a promulgation. So even from the formalistic legal sense, it was entirely illegal for anyone to use Paul VI's Missal. Even if it were not against the dogma of the Faith, Session VII, Canon XIII of the Council of Trent, even if that were not a dogma of the Faith - let's say that it's morally and dogmatically permissible to abolish the rites and create new rites, and that all you need is the legal formality of promulgation. Well, still it was not promulgated.

So Cardinal Gut had to sign a decree promulgating the New Missal. But there's a problem with that too, because in law, a solemn decree of a Pope cannot be overruled by a Cardinal of the Curia. Even if he is explicitly authorized by the Pope. It has to be a decree of equal solemnity to overrule the solemn decree of a Pope. So you have the very solemn decree of Pope Pius V in 'Quo Primum', promulgating the Roman Missal, codifying the Rite for the Latin Patriarchate with a few exceptions. And then you have Pope Paul VI telling his Cardinal to overrule Pope St. Pius V 's decree. It cannot be done. [...l The principle of law is: 'inferior potest tollere legem superioris'. The inferior, the subject, cannot nullify the law of the superior. Cardinal Gut did not possess the authority to overrule the solemn decree of Pope St. Pius V.

So the two promulgations of the rite are both invalid. Number one, Pope Paul VI's is invalid because it doesn't promulgate anything. And Cardinal Gut's promulgation is invalid because he does not possess the power to overrule the solemn decree of a Pope: even if Pope Paul VI told him to do it, he didn't have the power to do it.

So, if anyone were to say that the missal and sacramental rites of Paul VI were "legitimately promulgated" - well, it is strictly, according to the teaching of the Church, violating the Dogmatic Canon, and therefore it is heretical in its very nature to say that these things are legitimate or that they were legitimately promulgated. First of all, they were not promulgated. Secondly, it can never be legitimate to promulgate a rite that changes the Traditional and received rites into other and new rites. This is declared by the Council of Trent to be anathema!

And this anathema is exactly what Paul VI carried out into action and forced on the Church, falsely claiming that it had the force of law, when it did not…

{Excerpt for discussion purposes.}
www.TheRecusant.com

Author Topic: Fr. P. Kramer, June 2, 2013, London Resistance meeting - New Mass illegitimate (Read 1093 times)

Twice dyed

Fr. P. Kramer, June 2, 2013, London Resistance meeting - New Mass illegitimate