Michael Fighting
"Michael…who standeth for…thy people," — Dan. 12:1-12
The false V2 Council, the "new mass" and the 1983 Code are null and void
Since the beginning of the Traditionalist movement, an endless and tedious debate concerning the binding nature of V2 documents and the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae has ensued. Unless one professes to be a practicing Modernist, the "new mass" can be dismissed altogether simply because of its falsified Canon: Nowhere in any Bible that existed prior to all the flood of "revised" versions does "many" equate to "all." By comparing Matt. 26:28 as it appears in the Douay-Rheims and Protestant Bibles, it is easy to see that word used is "many" for as far back as one cares to go. Even the Protestants were not bold enough to change Christ's very words. That anyone would touch the Canon, inviolate for 1500 years, is unthinkable. But that anyone would touch the very part of the consecration containing Christ's own words and adjust them to mean other than what He intended is sacrilege most foul and heresy set up on the altar as orthodoxy, (one interpretation of the abomination.) This heresy and sacrilege is so evident that no discussion should be necessary. That the contested validity of the NOM has consumed the better part of nearly four decades and filled the pages of countless books and other publications is a sure indication that Traditionalists long ago lost any sensus Catholicus they might once have possessed.
As for the false Vatican 2 council, it is no more binding than the Council of Pisa, never considered a true council by the Church. Only a valid Roman Pontiff can call a General Council. Only valid bishops can attend one and vote on its canons. The evasion that V2 was never a General Council but only pastoral was long ago put to rest by no less than Paul 6. This antichrist himself decreed that the false council's teachings must be obeyed as "the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the council on the nature and aims of the individual documents," (General audience held Jan. 12, 1966). Only those denying the constant teaching of the Church concerning the binding nature of documents issuing from the ordinary magisterium will continue to insist on a "pastoral" council in light of this statement. Of course Paul 6 could not bind in this manner, yet the intention to bind Catholics to the teachings of his false church is clearly evident here.
If we follow Cum ex through to its stated and inescapable conclusions, a non-Catholic cannot be Pope, so a heretic elected as a true Pope can be only an antipope. A non-Catholic, (John 23) called bishops and cardinals to his false council (V2) to define heresy as truth. The recognition of this antipope by these cardinals and bishops, long before the council convened disqualified them as heretics, so it is no wonder that V2 produced heretical teaching. Likewise the 1983 "Code of Canon Law," invoked by Traditionalist "priests" to justify their illicit actions in providing Mass and Sacraments despite numerous suspensions and excommunications. Few lay Traditionalists realize that when these censured ministers invoke "Canon Law" in support of their ability to function as Catholic "priests," they are not appealing to the 1917 Code but to the false code of 1983, nullified by Pope Paul IV. A careful examination of their appeal to epikeia and ecclesia supplet from a pre-1959 view shows no basis for their claims. Commentary and dissertations written on these topics, following Church teaching on the 1917 Code, demonstrates that such men cannot function at all without first receiving papal absolution from their crimes. And even if they were free to function, they could not appeal to either epikeia or ecclesia supplet, which limits the celebration of Mass and dispensing of the Sacraments to situations where jurisdiction already is presumed to be supplied if not actually present.
Only a true Pope can identify and condemn these heresies, as has been necessary in the past when the works and acts of antipopes were condemned. So all the voluminous commentary on the NOM and this false council was not only unnecessary, but was instigated as an attempt to distract and confuse Traditionalists. It successfully steered them away from any examination of the papacy as the primary unifying factor of Catholicism precisely as the enemies of the Church intended. It mired them firmly in the problem — the circuitous discussion and dialectic analysis of the V2 church, its leaders and its liturgy. This overwhelming examination of propaganda is the primary tactic of all cults and sects wishing to control their members. Chasing the insoluble problem of V2 prevented the study and research necessary to discover a solution to the real dilemma: the re-establishment of papal authority.
