Would you like to see a phasing out of the Novus Ordo Missae leading to a return to only the TLM?

[saint_rafael]

No one is asking you to leave it. I asked the question if you are sure this is where you belong, because you said in a previous post that you find nothing good about the Church.

The Church is in ruins. I said that there was nothing good about the situation of the Church or the state of it now. I was not talking about the nature of the Church itself. I belong on the front lines battling for tradition. All the joy, passion, and energy is the traditionalist movement. We are the future. This is an all out war between the modernists and trads. You neo-Catholic centrist “conservatives” need to get out of the way. :knight1:
The war has been going on for fifty years and we will win this in this century. There is only orthodoxy or heterodoxy.

I have never seen a saint claim that the know how the story ends. All of the saints have professed faith in God’s love and mercy and pray that it will come soon. You claim to knowing that this is coming this century is contrary to what the scriptures say, “No one knows the day nor the hour.”

I was not talikng about the seond coming or the end of the world. I was talking about the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Our Lady of Fatima promised there will be an era of peace once all the events play out. The Church will reach it’s highest point in history, more glorious than the middle ages. The Church will guide and rule the world, while faith and respect will reach it’s highest point. That’s the promise from heaven.

Knowledge cannot replace love, especially love toward all people. Those great men and women who came before us loved truth so much that they also saw hunger, discrimination, injustice, families in crisis, abandoned youth, the value of prayer and discernment, the value of contemplation and solitude. Why don’t you start a thread on these truths and how to pray, how to listen to the Spirit, how to serve Christ in the poorest of the poor.

Love is more nobler it’s true, but truth is greater than love. There can be no love without truth. The saints loved truth to the point of opposing all error, including when Popes are wrong. St. Catherine of Sienna scolded the Pope to come back to Rome from France during the Avignon Captivity.

There is no doctrine against visiting a synogogue. The reason it was never done was because of the antagonism between the two groups. By the way, John XXIII invited the Jews to Vatican II and he is now on the fast track to canonization.

Pope John XXIII has not been canonized yet and he won’t be because there are too many questions about his orthodoxy.
Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos (On Religious Unity) stated that the only valid ecumenism is Catholic conversion. Past Popes have made statements on Judaism. traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a028htJPII_VisitToSynagogue1986.htm

If it’s not about the individual, just about the faith and the magisterium, how can there be a magisterium without Peter? Christ did not build his Church upon a council, he built it upon the faith of Peter. “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.” The person who occupies his chair has always been the most important person in the Church, for where there is Peter, there is the Church.

I am in no way denying Peter or the Papacy. Most Popes have followed the magisterium. I was talking about opposing individuals who are against the magisterium. I was talking about what the great Saints said which was we follow the magisterium and the good Popes. We do not follow bad Popes.

 

[saint_rafael]

The Protestants wanted these things exclusively. The Church however has emphasized the communal aspect but not to the exclusion of the sacrificial aspect. Mass is both a sacrifice and a banquet*; both an offering to God and something of which we partake and which imparts grace to us. It is a communal meal, but it is also (contrary to the “Reformers”) an unbloody re-presentation in time of the eternal Sacrifice of Calvary. The ironic thing is that even as you accuse the OF of being influenced by Protestantism you are yourself indulging in a Protestant-esque dichotomic “either/or” style of argumentation. There is no reason whatsoever to reject either of the dual dimensions of the Mass.

That is wrong. I don’t have an either/or mentality. I agree that both the meal and sacrafice aspect are present in the new Mass. I did not say the sacrafice is missing, it is there. Like you said, the meal is emphasized. It is becuause the sacrafice is so deemphasized that we have a crisis. Just ask the average Catholic about it. Most don’t even know the Mass is a sacrafice.

I would like to know exactly how this is Protestant (besides the guilt-by-association argument that it was proposed by Protestants).

Simple. Never in the tradition of the Church have priets ever faced the people. The Mass was always said Ad Orientem, towards the East and God. The earliest records from the second century have stated the priest faced toward Christ and not the people.

Straw man. Nowhere does the Church teach this.

The Church and the magisteruim does not teach this, but there is so much confusion among Catholics. With the laity distributing communion, reading the scriptures, running parish finances, pastoral councils in which the parish is a democracy, and priests wearing secular clothes, the average Catholic believes there is no difference. The priesthood is not respected with awe like it was 50 years ago. Then you have Cathechists and theologians running around crazy, talking nonsense about the royal priesthood of the laity in which they are prophet, king, and priest. They blur the distinction between the real ordained priesthood and the gifts of the laity.

Was St. Basil Protestant?
Or maybe St. John Damascene?
I could go on by quoting St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St John Chrysostom, St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Synod of Trullo and much more, but you get the point.
Again, look to the early Church and you’ll find that this was not a Protestant practice to begin with.
Well, (you guessed it) the early Church did this as well. Aramaic and Greek were the vernacular in the first couple centuries.

**There is such a thing as development of doctrine. The liturgy developed organically during the centuries. What happened in the early Church happened in the early Church. The Church grew in understanding as the centuries passed. It moved on. Since the
8th century, Communion on the tongue and under one species was the norm and tradition until the New Mass.

When the Mass was codified at Trent, it had reached the highest point of development. The Mass could not be improved anymore at that point. That is why Pope Pius V issued the infallible Bull Quo Primum in which the Tridentine Latin Mass would exist forever and no Pope could revoke it. This did not mean future Popes could not make cosmetic changes. They could. Popes have added and deleted minor prayers.
The Council of Trent issued anathemas to those like the Protestants, who insisted on Communion under two species. Trent said that Communion under One species, the sacred host, was sufficient because the celebrant, the priest, recieved the sacred blood.**

 

[saint_rafael]

I am amazed because this whole post, no offense intended to anyone, sounds like a protestant group arguing over the baptism of the Holy Ghost. If the Pope has the Keys of the Kingdom and any of them approved the NO then it is the Ordinary form of the mass. It now has God’s approval, but the abuses do not and must be stopped or I fear St. Raffeil is right there could be another break in the Church. That is sad.

**
That is where you are wrong Channy. The New Mass is not associated with Papal infallibility in any way. It was only a governing decision by Pope Paul VI. It has no dogmatic weight. Pope Paul VI did not issue the New Mass as infallible because he didn’t want to. He didn’t believe in papal infallibility. He had the keys but he didn’t use them.**
**
Pope Pius V, on the other hand, issued the Bull “Quo Primas” as infallible. He used his keys to bind up this doctrine forever and binded this for all future Popes. He said that the Tridentine Latin Mass must exist forever:**

“Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other Churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world”

“No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

There will not be another break, because the crisis is not schism, but heresy. The Church will retain it’s sound doctine and expel the current heresy of modernism in the future, like it dealt with the heresies of Arianism, Gnosticism, Donatism, and Protestantism.

 

[pnewton]

. The priesthood is not respected with awe like it was 50 years ago.

I find this ironic if not absolute hypocracy coming from you who has made such statements like:

It is the clergy who have not followed the magisterium.

The Bishops won’t do anything. They are part of the problem.

This just in the last day or two.

 

[EasterJoy]

The church I attended had no crucifix, no kneeling, no altar candles, no entrance procession, no bells, no incense. There were 2 girls in shorts and tennis shoes who were the altar servers and one woman EM also wore shorts. People were talking and moving about. The whole thing was really strange to me. I have been to a couple of wonderful NO Masses, so I had something with which to compare it. I honestly thought I was at a Protestant church.

Sadly, this the NORM for most parishes and dioceses.

The Bishops won’t do anything. They are part of the problem. They haven’t done anything about the abuses of Communion in the hand, altar gils, modesty, or lay ministers of Holy Communion.

The U.S. bishops have ignored all the requests from Rome to stop abuses. Rome and the U.S. are in an unofficial schism.

Norm? That is weird, and I’ve been to Mass in California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, and Delaware. A few places where the chapel wasn’t permanent didn’t have kneelers, but that’s it.

 

[Brian777]

Stop the spin! The burden of proof is on you.

You make wild and unsubstantiated claims that the Pauline Mass is the product of Protestants and a Catholic “cardinal” who was also a Freemason. That’s a horrid non-truth.

To burden of proof is on you to substantiate your position – which you cannot of course in this case.

Ok here are their names, along with what heretic organization they represent:

Dr. George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Shepherd, Dr Konneth, Dr. Smith, and Brother Thurian. They represented The World Council of Churches, The Church of England, The Lutheran Church, and the Protestant Community at Taize. These were led by Archbishop Bugnini, who has been all too often accused of Freemasonry. The Mass these men wrote, was rejected by the Synod of Bishops in Rome in 1967.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I would strongly recommend against making assumptions and it’s an interesting statement that you said, “my bitterness.” I said that you sounded angry. You made the Freudian slip and owened the bitterness.

It’s not fair to categorize the use of a nearly synonymous word as a Freudian slip. By denying any bitterness, he does not effectively “owen” the bitterness. That must have been a Freudian slip, JReducation - were you very angry at a poor fellow named Owen when you were typing your post?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I am amazed because this whole post, no offense intended to anyone, sounds like a protestant group arguing over the baptism of the Holy Ghost. If the Pope has the Keys of the Kingdom and any of them approved the NO then it is the Ordinary form of the mass. It now has God’s approval, but the abuses do not and must be stopped or I fear St. Raffeil is right there could be another break in the Church. That is sad.

If something has God’s approval, then it must be correct. This is to say that it is infallible. By assigning this character to the NO, you are declaring the papal decision to be infallible. To avoid such embarrassment in the future, please re-read the definition and criteria of Papal Infallibility from Vatican I.

 

[saint_rafael]

I find this ironic if not absolute hypocracy coming from you who has made such statements like:

This just in the last day or two.

There is no hypocracy. The blame is shared by all. I was talking about the laity itself which has no sense of the sacred anymore because of their utter confusion. The Laity and clergy are equally to blame.
The office needs to be respected, even though some of the clergy are rotten or heretical. For example, Cardinal Mahoney is an apostate and heretic, but if he walked into a room, I would stand up because of the respect for the office of priesthood.

As far as the overall clergy it can be broken down like this:

1/3 are good holy orthodox men

1/3 are heretics who are actively working for the devil

1/3 are in utter confusion. They are not heretical, nor are they actively aware of the tradition. They follow the novelties and what they were taught in the seminaries.

 

[Brian777]

The Protestants wanted these things exclusively. The Church however has emphasized the communal aspect but not to the exclusion of the sacrificial aspect. Mass is both a sacrifice and a banquet*; both an offering to God and something of which we partake and which imparts grace to us. It is a communal meal, but it is also (contrary to the “Reformers”) an unbloody re-presentation in time of the eternal Sacrifice of Calvary. The ironic thing is that even as you accuse the OF of being influenced by Protestantism you are yourself indulging in a Protestant-esque dichotomic “either/or” style of argumentation. There is no reason whatsoever to reject either of the dual dimensions of the Mass.

• Even The Latin Mass magazine ran an article last year against Communion in the hand, called “Bankrupting the Banquet”. So this concept should not be foreign to tradtitionalists.

I would like to know exactly how this is Protestant (besides the guilt-by-association argument that it was proposed by Protestants).

Straw man. Nowhere does the Church teach this.

Was St. Basil Protestant?

Source (emphasis mine)

Or maybe St. John Damascene?

Source (Chapter 13) (emphasis mine)

I could go on by quoting St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St John Chrysostom, St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Synod of Trullo and much more, but you get the point.

Another straw man. Where was kneeling prohibited after Vatican II?

This hardly Protestantizes the OF. Like I asked before, where were the altar rails in the early Church? If they were not found in the early Church, true this is not in itself a reason to get rid of them (that would be antiquarianism), but at the same time it should make one think twice about attributing the removal of the rails to an exclusively Protestant influence, no?

(Also in my earlier post (which you ignored), I made the point that loss of faith in the Real Presence cannot reasonably be traced to removal of altar rails.)

Again, look to the early Church and you’ll find that this was not a Protestant practice to begin with.

Well, (you guessed it) the early Church did this as well. Aramaic and Greek were the vernacular in the first couple centuries. Later on when Latin was introduced it was the predominant common language and remained so for centuries until the evolution of the Romance languages. And besides, Pope Pius XII himself, in Mediator Dei, wrote:

Source

Was Pius being Protestant???

When you argue every point of SR, you are making the reformers (heretics) look like they are trying to bring back the ourer traditions of the Early Church. By doing this it seems as if you are indirectly making the Mideaval Church look like it was the one in heresy and un-truth. I hope that is not what you were trying to do. I understand where you are coming from, but i think you should think about your presentation of your argument first.

 

[Joannm]

Ok here are their names, along with what heretic organization they represent:

Dr. George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Shepherd, Dr Konneth, Dr. Smith, and Brother Thurian. They represented The World Council of Churches, The Church of England, The Lutheran Church, and the Protestant Community at Taize. These were led by Archbishop Bugnini, who has been all too often accused of Freemasonry. The Mass these men wrote, was rejected by the Synod of Bishops in Rome in 1967.

According to my readings, the Synod approved of the work of the Consilium and only asked for changes in the texts and it was not all out rejected.

 

[Brian777]

Indeed Look at the writings of the Protestant revolutionaries.
They hated that the Mass was a sacrafice because they didn’t believe in it.
They wanted a liturgical service that was communal. They wanted to celebrate it as a meal.

Look at their demands:

The priest should face the people.
There is no fundamental difference between priesthood and laity.
Communion in the hand
No kneeling
No altar rails
Communion under two species
service in the vernacular

We gave them what they wanted in the Novus Ordo. Pope Paul VI introduced it for ecumenical reasons. He thought Protestants would flock to the Church if it was similar to Protestantism. I f the meal was emphasized and the sacrafice deemphasized.

Right that is how’we will get them.
We have to biuld so many Churches for all them who are flocking.

The sad story is that they did not come. There only has been a mass exodus from the Church to Protestantism.
**
Luther knew the truth. He was brilliant. How prophetic he was when he said that if you destroy the Mass, you destroy the Catholic Church.
Lex Orandi. Lex Credendi.**

Historicaly, most of these changes were condemned as heresy during both the middle ages and at Council of Trent. Particularly the service in vernacular was condemned. Trent placed an anethema on any who would say such a service or partake in it. and of course there is also Quo Primum. Many of the medieval heretics who proposed any of the above changes were burned at the stake, and rightly so. So some of us, especially the youth, want to know just how did these changes come around. Well first of all we should say that the original form of the Novus Ordo was to be said in Latin and versus deum. As for the other changes I personally believe that communion in the hand and under both species was probably misunderstood or was preachd a different way in the middle ages by the heretics. I really dont see the sense in burning someone just because they say i want the Blood, so there must have been morr to it… But still these things were considered heresy. So where did they come from?

 

[Brian777]

According to my readings, the Synod approved of the work of the Consilium and only asked for changes in the texts and it was not all out rejected.

ok well i heard diferently. Perhaps it was all out rejected then asked to be revised, then accepted in 1969.

 

[EasterJoy]

Even if your stats are true, your inference that it was caused by removal of the tabernacle and altar rails is a ludicrous (and almost comical) post hoc ergo propter hoc. Tell me, did they have communion rails and the tabernacle on the altar in the early Church? Then why did they have such a strong faith? Lack of faith in the Real Presence is likely caused by other factors, such as the general secularization and immorality of our era… The correlation between Mass attendance and belief in the Real Presence is clear. Lack of faith is caused by people not attending Mass and not frequenting the Sacraments, not by removing altar rails.

I think there is a vicious cycle. The less the Sacraments are frequented, the less they are valued, and the more easily they are neglected. This is human nature.

Nevertheless, you are right: people were willing to die for the faith back when the laity were allowed to reserve the Eucharist in their own homes. I don’t think that there is evidence that increasing the distance between the laity and the Eucharist increased the willingness of the laity to endure martyrdom. If martrydom is not evidence of faith, I don’t know what is.

His sermons and lecures have been classic Ratzinger. As a theologian and professor, they are overly intellectual. The Pope needs to keep it simple. They don’t have enough edge. The Pope is too humble and as Pope he needs to rebuke and be more forceful. His rebukes have been to mild and naunce.

Some people appreciate a homily that does not over-simplify or water down the truth. As for humility, this is the first time I’ve heard a Pope criticized for exhibiting an excess of a virtue.

You are rebuking the Pope for not rebuking enough? Well, I think that in his last post, the Pope demonstrated that he is quite capable in that area. He is the Vicar of Christ, not you. You are one of 1 billion people…do you expect him to please you? Or do you automatically assume that pleasing you and pleasing God must by definition be the same thing? Might you see your way clear to allow our Holy Father to exercise his own pastoral judgement without second-guessing from the peanut gallery?

Going to the Jewish synogouge was an abomination. Before JPII, Popes never entered the house of worship of false religions. The worst part is that he did not preach Christ to the Jews. He did not ask tem to convert to Catholicism.

Another error was praying with heretics and scismatics. I thought Pope Benedict would put an end to this ecumenical nonsense.
His speech was ok but the Catholic truths were too vague. Again there was no call to conversion

I also was sad to see the Pope give Communion in the hand. I wish that he would understand that reverence and sacredness of Communion on the toungue had been tradition for 800 years and the ultimate development of doctrine.

As for “ecumenical nonsense”, maybe we should go back to the days when the kids were beating each other up for being in the wrong religion…and don’t mention what the adults did periodically. Yeah, those were the days! I think John Paul II and Benedict XVI are painfully aware of the results that come from Christians who marginalize the Jews, in particular. Did you live through Hitler? Did the Nazis round up the people you played with as a child, your neighbors and friends? I kind of thought not.

As for the Jews, they are blind with respect to their Messiah, but in no other respect is theirs a “false religion.” Their religion was not invented by man, but given by God… One who has seen fit to be infinitely merciful with the infidelities of His people. Has God changed toward the Jews? He has promised that He would not.

We have our Savior from the Jews. Considering how attached we ourselves can be to “tradition”, are we so sure that we, if we were born Jews, would have converted? There is such a thing as misplaced fidelity. We’ll be measured to with the measure we measure with. Be generous with the faith, hope, and love, then, but stingy with judgement.

There is no hypocracy. The blame is shared by all. I was talking about the laity itself which has no sense of the sacred anymore because of their utter confusion. The Laity and clergy are equally to blame.
The office needs to be respected, even though some of the clergy are rotten or heretical. For example, Cardinal Mahoney is an apostate and heretic, but if he walked into a room, I would stand up because of the respect for the office of priesthood.

As far as the overall clergy it can be broken down like this:

1/3 are good holy orthodox men

1/3 are heretics who are actively working for the devil

1/3 are in utter confusion. They are not heretical, nor are they actively aware of the tradition. They follow the novelties and what they were taught in the seminaries.

You think that you can get on the internet and bad-mouth 2/3 of the priesthood, a minute fraction of whom you have ever even laid eyes on, and yet you claim that you respect the priesthood because you stand when the Cardinal, whom you bad-mouth publicly as a heretic and an apostate, enters the room?

I hope that when my children are grown, they’ll choose a different standard of “respect.” If you really think the Cardinal is apostate and a heretic, you have better stay off your feet when you see him. Otherwise, choose your words less rashly.

 

[saint_rafael]

Easterjoy,

Joseph Ratzinger has to know that he is no longer Cardinal Ratzinger, but the Pope, Vicar of Christ. He has more responsibilty now and is soley responsible for guiding the Church and one billion people. He is a shy humble man by nature, but he has to realize that the Papacy demands more action and he has to govern and discipline as prior Popes have guarded the Church.

If you don’t beileve that we have heretical clergy in the Church, you are living in a bubble or fantasy land. Look at the utter decadance of the archdiocese of Los Angeles in the case of Mahoney. Then you have other men like Cardinal Kasper who doesn’t believe in anything.
Pope John Paul II himself alluded to this in his seromon during the beatification of the Fatima children. He used Rev. 12:3-4. The 1/3 of stars refer to the clergy.

 

[JReducation]

Indeed
Look at their demands:

The priest should face the people.
There is no fundamental difference between priesthood and laity.
Communion in the hand
No kneeling
No altar rails
Communion under two species
service in the vernacular

We gave them what they wanted in the Novus Ordo. Pope Paul VI introduced it for ecumenical reasons. He thought Protestants would flock to the Church if it was similar to Protestantism. I f the meal was emphasized and the sacrafice deemphasized.

Luther knew the truth. He was brilliant. How prophetic he was when he said that if you destroy the Mass, you destroy the Catholic Church.
Lex Orandi. Lex Credendi.

Do you believe that the Successor of Peter, who was promised the Keys of the Kingdom can embrace heresy in the liturgy?

If you observe Benedict the XVI, whom you sem to believe will restore the Church to the Tridentine rite has celebrated the mass using all of the above and seems to be enjoying himself.

Not only is he enjoying the celebration of the Eucharistic mysteries he is attracting thousands of Catholics and non Catholics.

I don’t believe that Benedict is either a readical, much less a heretic.

JR

 

[saint_rafael]

Do you believe that the Successor of Peter, who was promised the Keys of the Kingdom can embrace heresy in the liturgy?

If you observe Benedict the XVI, whom you sem to believe will restore the Church to the Tridentine rite has celebrated the mass using all of the above and seems to be enjoying himself.

Not only is he enjoying the celebration of the Eucharistic mysteries he is attracting thousands of Catholics and non Catholics.

I don’t believe that Benedict is either a readical, much less a heretic.

JR

You must keep in mind what I wrote in an earlier post:

**The New Mass is not associated with Papal infallibility in any way. It was only a governing decision by Pope Paul VI. It has no dogmatic weight. Pope Paul VI did not issue the New Mass as infallible because he didn’t want to. He didn’t believe in papal infallibility. He had the keys but he didn’t use them.

Pope Pius V, on the other hand, issued the Bull “Quo Primas” as infallible. He used his keys to bind up this doctrine forever and binded this for all future Popes. He said that the Tridentine Latin Mass must exist forever.**

The New Mass is not heretical. It is a valid Mass, because it kept the Roman Cannon. Bugnini originally did not include it, But by the grace of God, Pope Paul VI restored it.

The New Mass is bad liturgy and can be spiritually harmful, but it is valid.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

There is no hypocracy. The blame is shared by all. I was talking about the laity itself which has no sense of the sacred anymore because of their utter confusion. The Laity and clergy are equally to blame.
The office needs to be respected, even though some of the clergy are rotten or heretical. For example, Cardinal Mahoney is an apostate and heretic, but if he walked into a room, I would stand up because of the respect for the office of priesthood.

As far as the overall clergy it can be broken down like this:

1/3 are good holy orthodox men

1/3 are heretics who are actively working for the devil

1/3 are in utter confusion. They are not heretical, nor are they actively aware of the tradition. They follow the novelties and what they were taught in the seminaries.

A simple scripture quote would suffice here. “Judge not lest you be judged.” i have certainly seen judgments flying all over the place.
I almost want to come out with Rodney King’s line.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Easterjoy,

Joseph Ratzinger has to know that he is no longer Cardinal Ratzinger, but the Pope, Vicar of Christ. He has more responsibilty now and is soley responsible for guiding the Church and one billion people. He is a shy humble man by nature, but he has to realize that the Papacy demands more action and he has to govern and discipline as prior Popes have guarded the Church.

If you don’t beileve that we have heretical clergy in the Church, you are living in a bubble or fantasy land. Look at the utter decadance of the archdiocese of Los Angeles in the case of Mahoney. Then you have other men like Cardinal Kasper who doesn’t believe in anything.
Pope John Paul II himself alluded to this in his seromon during the beatification of the Fatima children. He used Rev. 12:3-4. The 1/3 of stars refer to the clergy.

If the church you follow is so holy, do you confess your malicious attack on the clergy, Pope, Cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons. . That is a sin you know. Do you receive our Lord Jesus after tearing down the Magisterium like this. Think about it. Please, for your sake.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Pope Paul VI did not issue the New Mass as infallible because he didn’t want to. He didn’t believe in papal infallibility.

Now we have swami Rafael telling us that a pope did not believe in a dogma of the Church. I am sorry son, but this is too much. You are so far out and so off the wall, that from my personal perspective, your posts are not worthy of a reply any more as all they do is attack Holy Mother Church. You will remain in my prayers.
Prayers & blessings to you as they are needed.
Deacon Ed B