Young Priests and the New Mass

Deus Vult

Well-Known Member
You sure can learn a lot by speaking with the priests of the new-SSPX.
In a conversation with a newly ordained Society priest I was surprised to hear him say the new Mass was legitimately promulgated. But in fact it was not.

The old SSPX published articles in the 90's written by Fr. Laisney which stated and explained how the new mass was not legitimately promulgated. As well, more recently Fr. Paul Kramer explains it very clearly.

And thanks once again to the Recusant, we are fortunate to have it available in transcript the part of Fr. Kramer's talk where he spells it out in detail. In this same issue 36 there is also in transcript Fr. Hesse who also explains according to Catholic teaching how the new mass is an illegitimate, schismatic rite.
http://www.cor-mariae.com/Recusant36.pdf

Transcribed from an excellent talk given at the Resistance conference in London, 2nd June
2013, a video of which can be found at the link below. The whole talks is well worth a lesson,
though for reasons of space we have been able to include only part of it..
.]
Fr. Paul Kramer on the New Mass
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGnstoua3hY
(Additional emphasis is mine)
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
down 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 neces-
sity 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 Gelineau,
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 the say the truth, “the Roman Rite
no 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 revision or adaptation of the Roman Rite. No. It is a new rite of Mass. It is no longer
the Roman Rite of Mass. And there is a problem there, because the dogma of the Faith infal-
libly teaches that this cannot be done.

The Modernist objection I always hear is: “No, that’s discipline, not dogma. Liturgy is disci-
pline, 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 Ecumenical 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 declared 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 Fatih 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 sacra-
mentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris
pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari pos-
se: anathema sit!”​
So what the solemn anathema declares to be a heresy is for anyone to say “that the Tradition-
al Rites, the received and approved Rites customarily used in the solemn administration of
the 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 legiti-
mate; 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
Church, falls into heresy.
“...aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse.” ‘Or if any eccle-
siastical 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 you’re 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 Ecumenical Council of Florence, and
Fransico 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 document
Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI. Because in Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI, we see I the title
“promulgation” - promulgation. What is the essence of law? Promulgation is one of the es-
sential characteristics of what constitutes a law. If there’s no promulgation, there’s no law.
The document 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 explicit-
ly 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 formalised 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 document 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 document
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 document 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 document 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
be the same for all four Eucharistic Prayers. So what he decreed simply refered to what was
to be published in the Missal. The document is not the promulgation of a rite, it is a publica-
tion of a missal. That’s all Missale Romanum ever was. He gave force of law to the publish-
ing 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 anoma-
lous. You open up the Novus Ordo missal and there you see, very proudly displayed,
Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI, “promulgation,” there’s the document, it doesn’t promulgate
anything, it just publishes the missal. It authorised 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 prom-
ulgated 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 authorised by the Pope. It has to be a decree of equal so-
lemnity to overrule the solemn decree of a Pope. So you have the very solemn decree of Pope
St. 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. [...] The principle of law is:
inferior non potest tollerelegem 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 promulgation 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 promulgat-
ed. 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 anathe-
ma! 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.
 
Last edited:

sarto

Member
The roots of this acceptance of the N.O. Mess go back to 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre but his signature to the document stating:

May 5, 1988
Protocol of Accord
I. TEXT OF THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the
Priestly Society of Saint Pius X founded by me:
*
*
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.

Obviously, for it to be valid, it must firstly be validly promulgated, or it would never have gained validity.

True, he reneged on his signature the following day, but NOT, by his admission, because he lost sleep over clause 1(d).
 
M

Martius

Guest
The roots of this acceptance of the N.O. Mess go back to 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre but his signature to the document stating:

May 5, 1988
Protocol of Accord
I. TEXT OF THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the
Priestly Society of Saint Pius X founded by me:
*
*
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.


The SSPX has always noted that the new mass MAY be valid, though the Archbishop was consistent in noting it is devoid of grace.

In terms of its promulgation, note that the Archbishop doesn't use the word 'legitimate'. He merely acknowledges that the new mass was promulgated by Popes Paul VI and JP II.
 

sarto

Member
The SSPX has always noted that the new mass MAY be valid, though the Archbishop was consistent in noting it is devoid of grace.

In terms of its promulgation, note that the Archbishop doesn't use the word 'legitimate'. He merely acknowledges that the new mass was promulgated by Popes Paul VI and JP II.

How could he admit that the Novus Ordo could even possibly be valid in some circumstances without being legitimately promulgated?
 

Deus Vult

Well-Known Member
How could he admit that the Novus Ordo could even possibly be valid in some circumstances without being legitimately promulgated?
The same way that an orthodox Mass can be valid but not legitimate. The Russian Orthodox for example have a valid priesthood and their Mass therefore brings our dear suffering Lord on their altar but it is not a legitimate Mass.
 

sarto

Member
The same way that an orthodox Mass can be valid but not legitimate. The Russian Orthodox for example have a valid priesthood and their Mass therefore brings our dear suffering Lord on their altar but it is not a legitimate Mass.

Then he should have said the Novus Ordo was valid but schismatic. That would have left no doubt.
 

Deus Vult

Well-Known Member
He did, many times.
"It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid,
we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of
heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses
or at Masses which endanger our faith. "
- Archbishop Lefebvre : The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979
 

sarto

Member
Right - got your quote from 1979. But then in 1988, he seems to have softened on the issue in the ambiguity of the Protocol. As consistent as he was defending the faith, he was inconsistent in his dealings with Rome. Why he even agreed to negotiate with +Ratzinger in 1988, especially after Assisi, is something I will never understand. It was not a prudnet way to "buy" a bishop from the Vatican.
 

Deus Vult

Well-Known Member
Well that's your personal opinion.
Archbishop Lefebve knew he would have severe censure once he consecrated the bishops so he was leaving no stone unturned trying to give every opportunity to show he was of good will trying to work with them. Rome was stalling to give him a bishop as they said they would but he realized they were simply waiting for him to die.
Sartor you seem to be well read on all this, it's odd that you're omitting the most salient points.
 

sarto

Member
I do understand all of these points. I am proposing that he was willing to sign a document recognizing the New Mass as valid (under some conditions) and hence validly promulgated (per the procedures the church set forth), which would be the only way it could be valid, but nonetheless poison and to be avoided at any cost (the point which obviously would not make it into the Protocol). The false resistance appears to make an issue about its promulgation but allow that it is OK to attend if your conscious dictates so and then grace somehow flows from it.
 

Deus Vult

Well-Known Member
Sarto please see above where I already explained using the example of the orthodox that validity does not mean it's legitimitely promulgated.
 

sacrosanctum

New Member
One more thing to mention. When a new law is promulgated, the law it replaces is abrogated. If, as we are led to believe, that the new law of liturgy replaced the old law of liturgy, then it would have the force of law in replacing the old law of liturgy, which it did not. Pope Benedict XVI mentioned this in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum:
"It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy."

Therefore, the modernist finds himself in a bit of a conundrum because he has to admit that there are now two rites of the Roman Latin Rite, which implies the creation of a new rite and as we know such an act was condemned at the dogmatic Council of Trent. He is in a world where the new rite is the Mass by decree only but never officially, formally and legally replacing the old rite.

But by not officially and legally promulgating the Missale Romanum of Paul VI and only declaring that the new missal may be published, Paul VI escapes technically being in schism. But the spirit of what he did was schismatic.

The modernist will often object that Bull Quo Primum could not bind any successor of Pope St. Pius V because changing the liturgy is a matter of discipline and administration. However, the Eucharist of the Mass is the core of Catholic Faith. The Holy liturgy is an expression of the Catholic Faith. There can be nothing present in the liturgy which is not in the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the law of liturgy pertains to faith and morals and is not merely in its essence disciplinary and administrative. Quo Primum is still in force leaving the Novus Ordo Missae as an illicit and schismatic rite.

The wool has been pulled over the eyes of the faithful by the wolves in the hierarchy simply because the wolves can control the narrative and demand false obedience. In this upside down world, the wolves call those Catholics who completely obey Church doctrine and the divine law heretics and schismatics.
 

Admin

Administrator
One more thing to mention. When a new law is promulgated, the law it replaces is abrogated. If, as we are led to believe, that the new law of liturgy replaced the old law of liturgy, then it would have the force of law in replacing the old law of liturgy, which it did not. Pope Benedict XVI mentioned this in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum:
"It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy."

Therefore, the modernist finds himself in a bit of a conundrum because he has to admit that there are now two rites of the Roman Latin Rite, which implies the creation of a new rite and as we know such an act was condemned at the dogmatic Council of Trent. He is in a world where the new rite is the Mass by decree only but never officially, formally and legally replacing the old rite.

But by not officially and legally promulgating the Missale Romanum of Paul VI and only declaring that the new missal may be published, Paul VI escapes technically being in schism. But the spirit of what he did was schismatic.

The modernist will often object that Bull Quo Primum could not bind any successor of Pope St. Pius V because changing the liturgy is a matter of discipline and administration. However, the Eucharist of the Mass is the core of Catholic Faith. The Holy liturgy is an expression of the Catholic Faith. There can be nothing present in the liturgy which is not in the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the law of liturgy pertains to faith and morals and is not merely in its essence disciplinary and administrative. Quo Primum is still in force leaving the Novus Ordo Missae as an illicit and schismatic rite.

The wool has been pulled over the eyes of the faithful by the wolves in the hierarchy simply because the wolves can control the narrative and demand false obedience. In this upside down world, the wolves call those Catholics who completely obey Church doctrine and the divine law heretics and schismatics.


Says it all!

..
 
Top