Home Forum Sacred Liturgy The Pontificate of Paul VI

This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  The Papal Subject 2 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • #6956


    I recognize that the discussion surrounding the new Mass on the blog invites the sedevacantist argument that Paul VI, in light of the Novus Ordo debacle, could not have been pope, with the premise being that the mere fact that the Holy Ghost allowed him to promulgate it proves as much.

    I mentioned in one of my recent blog posts the dogmatic quality of the Traditional Latin Mass as suggested by its pedigree (the language in Quo Primum aside).

    By contrast, I also noted that the Novus Ordo enjoys no such pedigree, and therefore no such dogmatic quality. The simple fact that it was given to the faithful as “Mass” does not change this.

    As for the Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum, of 1969 by which Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo, one finds therein no language or formula that would render it dogmatic in nature. (For comparison, consider the language found in the Apostolic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, of Pius XII defining the Dogma of the Assumption.)

    With this in mind, it would seem that it cannot rightly be said that the new Mass if given by a true pope would represent a failure on the part of the Holy Ghost to protect him from defining error, which, if true, would lead one to conclude that the Paul VI could not have been pope.

    The Novus Ordo is an example, albeit a uniquely stunning one, of a terrible pope abusing his exalted office.



    The issue always comes back to VII. Montini promulgated UNIVERSALLY a council and a new form of worship that are non-Catholic (whatever the degree of solmen language employed – it doesn’t matter – it is the act of univerally promoting the heresy that proves he is not Christ’s Vicar and that something is seriously ‘rotten in the state of Denmark’).

    As such Montini, even if his election was legitimate (which it could not be if he had been a manifest heretic before his election – but that’s another issue, which can also apply to Roncalli) his heresy through the vehicle of VII makes him a pretender to the throne and likeswise all his heresiarchal ‘successors’ who profess VII and worship the N.O. rather than Trent and the Mass of All Time. Bellarmine teaches this and he concurs with the Fathers, and later theologians concur with Bellarmine, the collective agreement of which concurs with Divine Law as laid out by several Popes. These men/imposters should be shunned and treated like ‘warlocks, heathens, publicans’, so said Paul IV. Yet most everyone calling themselves Catholic adhere to these ‘warlocks’ as if ‘he who hears [the warlocks] hears Me…’ Perverse.



    It alwasy comes back to VII. That Montini/Paul VI UNIVERSALLY promulgated a non-Catholic Council as THE church and a non-Catholic rite as THE rite is proof he was a pretender to the throne. (It should also be remembered that any prelate who has any manifest heretical words or behaviour on his consciences unconfessed can never be elected a Pope). Montini and his cluster of heresiarchal ‘potentates’ are the exact creatures Bellarmine (who concurred with the Fathers, and whom later theologians concur with, all agreeing with Divine Law and the pronouncments of the Popes) excluded from having any authority in the Catholic Church. Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio are the men Paul IV was speaking of when he gave all the faithful the express permisssion to treat them as ‘warlocks’, heathens, and publicans’. Instead most people continue to live and worship as if ‘he who hears [the warlocks] hears Me.’ Diabolical.

    Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio Paul IV: “Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).” Treat Bergoglio as a “warlock, heathen, publican, heresiarch’ – likewise, Ratzinger, Wojtyla of wretched memory…. Matthew 18 “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican…” These ‘warlocks’ “will not hear the Church”.

    Reading the entirety of Cum Ex Apostolatus leaves us in no doubt that Rome is currenlty ruled by ‘warlocks’, not by Peters.


    The Papal Subject

    I don’t know why I haven’t seen these forums in all this time.

    This is a great point Louie.

    It’s a double edged sword, and it’s unclear which of the two historical scenarios regarding the introduction of the Novus Ordo actually happened.

    Either Paul VI officially promulgated the Novus Ordo in law, or he did not, but only offered it to the faithful.

    Because it is a “striking departure” from the theology of the Mass as infallibly defined by Trent, and the fact that it is the engine room and proximate cause of the current, near-universal apostasy we are witnessing before us, it cannot have come from the Church.

    So if Paul VI promulgated it, he could not have been pope, and therefore we have neither any guarantee of it’s acceptability to God as pleasing worship, or of its validity.

    On the other hand, if he did not officially promulgate it, and remained the Pope, it is not binding. The net result is the same. We have neither any guarantee of it’s acceptability to God as pleasing worship, or of its validity.

    Either way, no Catholic has any business attending it.

    I’m happy to have any holes in the argument pointed out.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.