“It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding… The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful.” (Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976)
(Following up on the points just made, this section further refutes one of the biggest false traditionalist myths, that Antipope Paul VI never made Vatican II and the New Mass binding. Since Vatican II is heretical, and the New Mass is a false “Mass,” this is powerful proof that Paul VI was not the pope)
As we’ve been discussing, among those who recognize problems with the post-Vatican II apostasy, there are many “traditionalists” who reject the New Mass and Vatican II, but maintain that Paul VI, the man who promulgated them, never bound anyone to either the New Mass or Vatican II.
Chris Ferrara, The Remnant, “A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Nov. 15, 2005, p. 11: “As already mentioned, even Vatican officials, including the 1984 cardinalate commission, have conceded that the traditional Mass was never actually abolished de jure by the promulgation of the New Mass, and that priests have always been free to continue using the preconciliar Missal… In essence, Paul VI merely created a new rite alongside the old rite, leaving the old intact and never actually forbidding its continued use.”
Well, let’s quote Paul VI himself to explode and destroy this falsehood. You will probably never see it quoted in false traditionalist publications who want to hang on to the myth that Paul VI could have been a true pope, since it is devastating to their FALSE TRADITIONALIST ENTERPRISE. Here it is (brace yourselves false traditionalists):
Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: “And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is lead by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.
“It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…
“The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo [without people]. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…
“We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.”
There you have it. Paul VI himself directly refutes the false traditionalists on their two main contentions. Paul VI declares that it is “certainly not” the “free choice” of priests or faithful to not adopt the New Ordo Missae (the New Mass). He also denounces their assertion that the Second Vatican Council is not binding, and he indicates that the logical consequence of the position of Lefebvre, which rejects the New Mass and Vatican II, and operates independently of the hierarchy it recognizes, is to place him outside the Church.
It’s time for everyone to wake up and realize that the Vatican II sect is a counterfeit sect from head to toe, and there is no way to salvage it or its antipopes. That’s why all the “bishops” with “ordinary jurisdiction” in the Vatican II sect hold that Vatican II is the official teaching of the Church. It’s why all of the “traditional” groups which receive “official approval” from the Vatican II sect must accept Vatican II. It’s why Benedict XVI recently told the leader of the SSPX that they cannot be accepted fully in the Vatican II sect unless they accept Vatican II.
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.