The new Mass was NOT legitimately promulgated!

Source: Recusant issue 36

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 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 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 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 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 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 authorised 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 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 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.