OLMC focuses again on validity only?

Auscivivocanto nobis dimitti...(etc.)... nuntare 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 by "any pastor of churches, WHOSOEVER" : it is understood, including the Pope himself, because of the profession of the Council of Constance.

So, whenever I quote this Canon, I'm always told by some Modernist who thinks of himself, "enlightened," he'll say, "Well, that's YOUR
INTERPRETATION -- that's just your interpretation, that just refers to the hierarchy UNDER the pope, but the pope has the authority to
regulate the liturgy; it doesn't apply to him!"

Well, no. No, sorry but, ah, dear Modernists, the Church has already defined that the Pope, principally, MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE, the Pope is bound to the Traditional Rites. THAT'S the Council of Constance. Then 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 been most constantly taught in the Church, in the most approved teaching of the greatest theologians in the history of 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 Oecumenical Council of Florence, and Francisco Suarez after him, "doctor eximius et Deus" the excellence of pious doctor, explained that those who would carry out into practice that heretical proposition of changing the Rites -- that if the Pope would change the rites, then the Pope himself would fall into schism. It is essentially a schismatic act and it is rooted in heresy, a very solemnly declared heresy, that it would be 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 [1969], there will be introduced into the liturgy of the Latin Church, a new rite of Mass.

So then, the Modernists will point out, "well, it is the grace of office that preserves the Pope from promulgating for the whole Church an illicit rite. That cannot be."

[Fr. Kramer is being diplomatic and kind. He says, correctly, that this is what the MODERNISTS say, but the message serves as well to the sedevacantists who likewise say this, and in so doing make themselves into Modernists. You see, this is due to the fact that Fr. Kramer has studied what Modernism is, and he knows how to avoid falling under its inherent deception.]

Well, one that 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 in the title, the word, "Promulgatio," Promulgation. If you read in the essence of law, promulgation is one of the essential characteristics that constitute the law. If there's no promulgation, then there is no law.

The document is lacking the substance and form of promulgation.

The missal of Paul VI was never promulgated by Paul VI.

You have the solemn promulgation of Pope Pius V, of the Roman Missal, and there, it is explicitly stated, that this missal is to be used by those subjects, with those exceptions, and all other missals are to be utterly discarded. So, who is subject to the law? What is the very, what 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 preceptive in its wording. If the law does not command something under obligation and penalty, it doesn't have the force of law; it's not a law. It simply is not a law. And without that having been formalized, in the very substance of the law, enacted as binding, you do not have the promulgation of law. You do not have the substance in the form of a law. It is lacking.

So, Pope Paul VI uses the word, "promulgation," in the title of a document that doesn't promulgate anything.

Read it carefully. I would compare it to -- just think that if Pope Pius XII had been forgetful, when he solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption, and you would have that Papal Bull, sent out to solemnly define the dogma of the Assumption, and you would have the entire document from beginning to end, exactly as it is worded. But if that one sentence were left out, where he says, by our apostolic authority, we define, 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, "This Is a Dogmatic Definition," there's no definition in the document if you leave that line 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 statute 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 decree something. He says, "What we have decreed in this document is given the force of law -- what we have decreed," uh, what did he decree?

Ask the question what he had decreed: "What have you decreed, Pope Montini?" Well, he decreed two things:

1) He decreed that three Eucharistic prayers are to be added into this missal; and he decreed that,

2) There is one formula of consecration that is to be the same for ALL FOUR Eucharistic prayers.


So, what he DECREED was simply what was to be published in the missal. The document is not a 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 is something very anomalous. You open up the Novus Ordo missal, There you see, very prominantly displayed, is "Missale Romanum" Pope Paul VI's "promulgation"; there's the document -- it doesn't promulgate anything, it just publishes a missal, it authorizes the publication of the missal, that's all it does. Turn the page, what do you see? A decree signed by [Benno] Cardinal Gut: "Promulgation" [the anomaly, for which Cardinal Gut might be burning in hell].

How is it that a missal had to be promulgated twice? Well, because the first promulgation was [under] the color of law; it had no form or substance; it was nothing. It was not a promulgation. So, it was entirely, even from a formalistic legal sense, it was entirely ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE TO USE the Paul VI missal! Even if it were NOT against a dogma of the Faith in Session 7 Canon 13 of the Council of Trent; even if that were not a dogma of the Faith -- Let's say it were morally, dogmatically permissible to abolish the rites and to create new rites [just for the sake of argument], 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 missal.

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's specifically authorized 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 Pius V, in Quo Primum, promulgating the Roman Missal codifying the rite for the Latin Patriarchate with few exceptions. And then you have Pope Paul VI, telling this cardinal to overrule Pope Pius V's decree. It cannot be done. The principle of law was formulated by, back in the 1400's [15th century], by an English canonist, uh, I'm trying to think of his name; Lynwood or something like that, where he said that he was explicating that principle in a particular case. The Papal Legate brought a document from Rome and he says he's "enforcing the document." Cardinal Ottoban (sp?) later became Pope himself, he came to England with this decree. I think the man's name was William Lynwood, from the Archepiscopal curia of Canterbury, and his
commentary was, well, the cardinal has no authority to enforce anything. It's already the Pope who decreed it. It's as though, what more can a cardinal say? All he can do is deliver it, because, he invokes that point of law, that principle of law, Inferior non potest tollere legem superiores -- the inferior, the subject, cannot nullify the law of the superior. And as Cardinal Ottoban (?) did not have authority exceeding that of the Pope, well, neither did Cardinal Gut possess the authority to overrule the solemn decree of Pope 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.

[Therefore the Newmass and sacraments were not promulgated, number one. - comment of the person posting this transcript]