The Debate is Over; False Traditionalists lose: Paul VI ends a very popular and significant false traditionalist myth, as well as refuting recent declarations by Ferrara and Matt

Heresy of the Week (11/25/05) By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. Chris Ferrara is at it again.  One might think that after being refuted so many times he might remain silent.  No, he just keeps spewing his falsehoods; and so we will keep refuting them.  This week Ferrara repeats a myth very near and dear to the hearts of the false traditionalists: the idea that Paul VI never forbade the use of the Old Mass, and never made the New Mass obligatory.

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.  I don’t believe that until today we’ve ever gotten around to quoting this very important speech on our website.  It’s a quotation that Bro. Michael came across in his detailed study of Paul VI’s writings.  You will probably never see it quoted in The Remnant, Catholic Family News, etc., 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.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)

There you have it.  Paul VI himself directly refutes Chris Ferrara and 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.  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. Conveniently, this refutes another UTTERLY RIDICULOUS and dishonest assertion that Michael Matt just made in a recent article for The Remnant.  In an article entitled “SSPX Not in Schism – Rome Has Spoken,” Michael Matt quotes “Cardinal” Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission.  Matt quotes Castrillon Hoyos who recently asserted that the position of the SSPX is not a “formal schism,” and that the “Mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished.”  Based on this “proof,” Matt concludes:

“[the SSPX is not in schism… and] …Pope Paul VI never actually abrogated the Tridentine Mass!  It’s still there just as it always has been, and the “option” called the Novus Ordo Missae is just that—an option, which Catholics are free to reject.  End of story! Traditionalists win!  We don’t pretend to know why Cardinal Castrillón elected to make these statements which are now part of the permanent record, but, clearly, the debate is over.” (The Remnant, Nov. 30, 2005)

Does anyone fail to see that this statement is utterly absurd, dishonest and illogical? Does anyone really believe that if Castrillon Hoyos had said the SSPX is in schism The Remnant would have published an article stating “SSPX is in Schism – Rome has Spoken!”?  Of course not.  “Rome has Spoken” for Matt when he likes what a particular Roman “prelate” has said.  He likes Castrillon Hoyos’s statement because he thinks that it allows his schismatic buddies, the Bishops of the SSPX, off the hook. To illustrate Matt’s hypocrisy, remember that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) stated that Protestants and Eastern Schismatics are not heretics.  He stated this while holding a position much higher than Castrillon.  So, will Michael Matt admit that “Rome has Spoken”: Protestants are not heretics; end of debate!  Of course not, and this just shows his inconsistency and dishonesty. Does everyone get it now?  Rome only speaks when Castrillon Hoyos speaks, and then only when Castrillon says what Matt likes to hear about Lefebvre or the Traditional Mass.  Rome doesn’t speak when Paul VI (his “Pope”!) says:

Paul VI: “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 popolo [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.”

And Rome certainly doesn’t speak when Benedict XVI says that Protestants are not heretics; no… not at all.  A statement from a Vatican prelate only constitutes Rome speaking when it tickles Matt’s ears, and justifies the schismatic position of his friends (the leaders of the SSPX), who operate a world-wide apostolate outside of communion with the hierarchy they recognize, while rejecting its official teaching and solemn “canonizations,” just to name a few. So, in conclusion: the debate is over, and the false traditionalists lose.  The statement from Paul VI utterly refutes the recent declarations of both Ferrara and Matt (on Lefebvre, Vatican II, and the New Mass) in one fell swoop.  The New Mass is the binding liturgy of the Vatican II sect.  Vatican II is the binding teaching of the Vatican II sect.  If they are false, as they certainly are, then the claims to the Papacy by the men who imposed them (the Vatican II antipopes) are just as false.  There is no way around this fact.  All of this shows us again the inconsistency of the false traditionalist position, which attempts to remain united with the false Church and its manifestly heretical non-Catholic antipopes.