Wednesday, 28 July 2021

No, Michael Swan of Toronto's Catholic Register - the Missal of 1962 WAS NOT ABROGATED by the Second Vatican Council and Marcel Lefebvre was never declared a "Schismatic!'

Dioceses review Latin Mass restrictions (

Toronto's Catholic Register has written on the matter of Bergoglio's cruel and vindictive punishment of faithful Catholics attached to the traditional Holy Mass. Michael Swan, never known for his accuracy has at least proved himself consistent. 

Once again, this blogger must correct Mr. Swan the Assistant to the Editor of the little read and mostly ignored Catholic Register.

He states that the "1962 Mass was abrogated by the Second Vatican Council." First, Swanny Boy, it is not the 1962 Mass it was the last Typical Edition of the Missal. But what does Michael know? Further, he outright contradicts Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum when he said that the Missal "was never abrogated!" If that is not enough, he declares Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre a "schismatic," something that neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI ever did. The excommunication for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate and in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the event was referred to as "a schismatic act" which is a far cry from a formal declaration of personal or corporate schism.

A little education for little Mikey. Buddy, go and read Sacrosanctam Concilium and tell us all where it was "abrogated." Read there about the use of Latin, Gregorian chant and that there was no call to set aside the Mass and come up with a new one. Go and take a look in your archives for a 1965 Roman Missal and tell us what that was. That, Mikey, was the Mass of Vatican II. What came after was not, it was an "on the spot banal product," as per then Cardinal Ratzinger.

This is, however, what we have come to expect from Toronto's Catholic Register.

Line your bird cage with it or train your puppy, that's about what it's worth.


Aqua said...

Whenever there is a question about what the Church Magisterium teaches on a topic, I highly recommend referencing official SSPX communiques.

When I became Catholic it was largely because of the claims made by the Church Magistrrium, constant, straight and true. I don’t care about my opinions, much less anyone else’s opinions. I only want to know what the Church teaches according to its Magisterium and I will believe it without question.

But … how does one come to find out what that teaching is on any specific topic - such as whether Quo Primum still binds us to accept the Holy Mass of Pope St. Pius V.

So many Catholics acting like Protestants these days. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I am firmly committed to finding and following orthodox Priests and Bishops into “all Truth”. It would be nice if we were all singing off the same sheet of music, but in this age of “two Popes” and Pachamama altars and Indifferentism the coin of the current realm we orthodox few have to search hard for the light.

And so - the SSPX position on Quo Primum:

Anonymous said...

I'm with Aqua....left the NO for the Latin Mass because it is the most reverent form of worship I have seen. I'm want to worship God and the priest facing me doesn't do it for me. Derya Little, a convert from Islam, has come to understand this...she says that she wants to be able to kneel before God.

Anonymous said...

I stopped reading the Catholic Register years ago and when they tried to give it for free I declined. Michael is an Associate Editor, just like Jim Acosta is a journalist.

Anonymous said...

It's getting to the point where if someone says good morning I feel I should fact check it. There is a socialist concept, I think in Alinsky's rules, that you just put out enough lies and BS and you overwhelm the other side. Most people don't actually fact check, in a world of too much information most people just believe what they read or hear. We can't do that anymore, half of what we hear is propaganda. Here this person puts out two lies for the price of one. Glad you fact checked him Vox.

Anonymous said...

July 29, 2021
All the pontifical universities are not interpreting Vatican Council II with the rational premise and neither is Joseph Shaw

Joseph Shaw in Does Traditionis Custodes contradict the documents of Vatican II? (Life site news) refers to Sacrosanctum Concilium but avoids the real issue with Vatican Council II,the Latin Mass and the traditionalists.This was known to Pope Benedict and the same policy is being followed by Pope Francis.
The Latin Mass is only permitted presently for those priests who interpret the Council with a false premise and so create a rupture with Tradition (Athanasius Creed etc). For example, in Britain.
The priests who accept Vatican Council II and interpret it with a rational premise , which does not contradict Tradition( Athanasius Creed) will not be given permission, even though they accept the Council.Since they would be affirming Feeneyite EENS.

Presently there is an interview of Eric Sammons by John Henry Weston on the Church teaching outside the Church there is no salvation. They have both kept the issue vague. Since they do not want to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise( and so affirm Feeneyite EENS) and neither do they want to affirm Feeneyite EENS without the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance being exceptions. It is the same with Joseph Shaw.
Archbishop Thomas Gullickson avoids the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, EENS and other Magisterial documents.There is no rupture with Tradition for him.So he had appealed to the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II, as he does.
On the other hand the English bishops and priests interpret the Council with the false premise, so they are permitted by Cardinal Vince Nicols to offer the Latin Mass. The ADL does not object.
Dr.Joseph Shaw a professor of philosophy interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and teaches it at the Benedictine St.Benet Hall, Oxford.
But Fr. Stefano Visintin osb, former Dean of Theology and Rector of the Benedictine Pontifical University of St. Anselm, Rome, does not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, as did Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar and Kung.
It is the same with Una Voce International and the Latin Mass Societies in Britain.They depend upon the fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition since this is approved by the Left.
With the use of the fake premise there are exceptions created in Vatican Council II for EENS. So there is a new version of EENS. It is EENS with exceptions. This is also the understanding of John Henry Weston and Eric Sammons and Steve Skojec who has left 1Peter5.
So with the false premise, like the Left, the traditionalist and conservative Catholics, support ‘ a theology of religions’.
This is the theology at the ecumenical and inter religious meetings for the Catholic Bishops Conference in Britain.
There was no 'theology of religious pluralism' at the time of St. Benedict,St. Ignatius of Loyola, St.Dominic Guzman. They all interpreted EENS without the fake premise, of the correspondents of Life Site News,like Joseph Shaw.But today in all the educational institutions of the Benedictines, Jesuits and Dominicans this is the norm.All the pontifical universities are not interpreting Vatican Council II with the rational premise and neither is Joseph Shaw.-Lionel Andrades

Anonymous said...

July 29, 2021
Pope Francis is not magisterial on Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custode: Mundalein seminary and Bishop Robert Barron must acknowledge the error

The Mundalein seminary, Chicago interprets Vatican Council with the false premise instead of the rational option and there is no comment from them or Bishop Robert Barron and the apologists at Word of Fire.

According to Vatican Council II, Rahm Emmanuel the former Mayor of Chicago and Biden’s Ambassador to Japan, is oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.The Council says all need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).He does not have it.Ad Gentes 7 is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church n.846 under the sub title Outside the Church no salvation.

With hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II there are no objective exceptions to AG 7 in 1965-2021.We cannot see or meet someone saved outside the Church.There are no practical cases of being saved as referenced in LG 8,LG 14 etc.No one in Chicago knew of someone saved outside the Church without faith and baptism .

There are no known cases of people in Heaven with the baptism of desire(BOD) or invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2021.

Cardinal Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago appointed by Pope Francis, like the faculty at Mundalein seminary continues to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so remains politically correct with the Left.

But this is unethical and not Catholic.

I accept the BOD and I.I as always being hypothetical.The book, Bread of Life, indicates that they were also hypothetical for Fr. Leonard Feeney.

I do not have to reject BOD and I.I ( speculative always) to affirm ‘the strict interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).BOD and I.I can only be speculative and never objective for us human beings.So being theoretical it is compatible with EENS and the need for all to practically have faith and the baptism of water to avoid the fires of Hell.

So BOD and I.I never ever were an issue.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO) made it an issue by confusing what is invisible(BOD, I.I) as being visible.

Fr. Leonard Feeney’s excommunication was lifted without him having to recant.The CDF knew that it had made a mistake.Since the Athanasius Creed states, like Fr. Leonard Feeney, that all need Catholic faith for salvation.This was the Creed of the Catholic Church for centuries.

Cardinal Cupich and Mundalein seminary could acknowledge that Pope Francis is not Magisterial when he uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II . Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custode were issued with this error.So they cannot be Magisterial.The pope needs to correct the mistake.He has issued these documents based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally, with a fake premise.Only in this way could a hermeneutic of rupture be created with Tradition( Athanasius Creed etc).-Lionel Andrades

Phineas said...

They should call it The Anglican Register. Stopped reading it a long time ago - couldn't stomach it.

Anonymous said...


Vox if the creator of the mRNA shots, Dr Robert Malone is correct, we could be experiencing a deliberate genocide.

Neofito said...

My Two Cents:
if the "1962 mass" (or whatever) was _never abrogated_ ...
Can u tell me WHY the "normal guy priest " at the next door could not dare to [execute? recitate? officiate?] it ???

if not was ever "abrogated", then WHY the Holy Benedict must come with an ESPECIFIC PAPER about it?

if was never "abrogated"... then why to "liberate" it???

Oh! I get it! it was "never abrogated"... just "forbidden" !! and/or supplanted !!!

Vox Cantoris said...


Abrogated would refer to a de jure act as opposed to de facto.

Johnno said...

It was "abrogated" in the same wholly legal way that the Government has "abrogated" you from leaving your home or exhaling without cloth in front of your face, or from going anywhere without your new government-obedience papers.

The New Normal began in the year 1960. The world is just catching up.

Neofito said...

Seems that u are wrong, Mr. Vox Cantoris...
from the moment that "a pope" (who IS "the law" in itself), promulgates the "N.O." as the ONE "lex orandi" ("lex"... u know what it means? its "law" from latin) it become "THE 'orandi' LAW) (at least for the Conciliar Church)...

The NEW "lex" DEROGATES the past "lex orandi"

Did u ever had chance/time to read the document that promulgated it? the "1969 Institutio Generalis" ?

signed (no less!) by da pope Saint Paul the 6th?
it say it ver clear on the first page... in latin, of course!

If u does not have it, just tell me and I can upload it to wherever u want...
Or hear an exposition about it on youtube... i made a short video on the explanation about this very "secret" document... (in spanish, but...)

Neofito said...

Mr. Vox: does you really believe that this kind of "technical tricks" about if it was... ehem... abolished from the face of the earth? wold count in from the God's Judgement ?

Does u think that this "tricky words" could save ANY responsability before God? "Oh! God... I did not ABROGATE it... it was merely forbidden... pls! dont blame me!"

I think that it is to try to hide it from the FACT that YOU COULD NOT FIND IT ANYWHERE on the plantet...
And if your Saint Holiness Johon P. the Second "semi-liberated or tolerated" it was just mere a REACTION... not because he was WILLING to do it.. not by his own choice, anyway...

Vox Cantoris said...


I believe we are on the same side. You miss the nuance. Benedict XVI says it was "never abrogated." This means there was no Law doing so. This writer, Swan, states that Vatican II abrogated it. How can two things opposite be true? Do you believe this ignorant Toronto writer, Swan or Pope Benedict XVI.

As for the actual on the ground situation, I agree with you. They acted for 50 years or more that it was "abrogated."


utahagen said...

Is that photo of Michael Swan for real? He must be homosexual.

Neofito said...

Mr. Vox Cantoris:
It was, IN FACT, and DE JURE (latin term!) abroggated...
Because, when a NEW LAW becomes "LAW" the previous one "law" its no more "law"... or in your terms, it become to be "abrogated"...

And Saint poul the 6th, it publised "a new law" when he SIGNED the "1969 institutio generalis" ...what kind of "law"... well the Church Law (for pray) its mainly "LEX ORANDI" (as it is the legal term for it).

The "1962 missal" becmes to be "abrogated" by "the NEW lex 'orandi'"

("lex orandi" in latin traslates to "Law of Pray"... LAW... u see it? its A LAW... NOT 'a custom' or 'preference'... its A LAW)

Anonymous said...

Saint Francis the First has abrogated the abrogated Tridentine Mass because under the NEW PREMISE MAJOR, IN FACT, DE JURE has abrogated Mr. Neofito! ...See?

Aqua said...


The SSPX defeated your arguments in a study published in 2013

All of this study is excellent. But the important summary I excerpt below.

We therefore offer the following criteria for conduct (on the question of whether Quo Primum prevails over the New Mass of Paul VI):

First Rule: The Missal of Paul VI cannot be said to be obligatory in any strictly juridical sense which would impose its use and exclude that of the "Roman Missal restored by the decree of the Council of Trent and published by order of St. Pius V."

Second Rule: The bull Quo Primum Tempore of St. Pius V has not been totally abrogated by the constitution of Paul VI, Missale Romanum, of April 3, 1969. At most, Pope Paul’s constitution derogates only certain particular details of the Tridentine Missal which will not be discussed in detail here.

Third Rule: Even if it is supposed that these derogations of Pope Paul are strictly obligatory, the fact remains that they leave intact the three privileges contained in the bull of St. Pius V, which have not been expressly abrogated by the present pope, and express abrogation is required by the principles of law.

The three privileges are:

1. The right of every priest to avail himself of the perpetual privilege discussed in Section V above.

2. The right of every priest to use, in preference to the Missal of Paul VI, the Tridentine Missal, which ratified a custom developed over the 15 preceding centuries and the centuries which followed.

3. The freedom of religious to keep the missal of their Order, or to use that of St. Pius V, in preference to the Pauline missal. (NB: Religious belonging to Orders with their own missal have a right to demand that their chaplain should use their own missal even if he does not wish to do so).

We are so certain of this doctrine that we feel able to add this final recommendation: If—and God forbid—any superior of whatever rank should presume to deny to priests, religious, or faithful the exercise of these rights, they may and should denounce to the competent authority, by every legitimate means, this infraction of the bull of St. Pius V, as an "Unlawful Abuse of Their Authority".

“Unlawful abuse of authority”. Seems to be a lot of that these days. The attempt to abrogate the Holy Mass of Pope St. Pius V is the ultimate expression of “unlawful abuse of authority”. It will not stand.

Anonymous said...

He enjoys triggering people. Ignore him and his newspaper. More people watch Taylor Marshal in one week than read the Non-Catholic Register in a year.

Tom A. said...

You can argue with the exact wording of Mr. Shaw from a legalistic viewpoint, but in essence Mr. Shaw is correct. Vatican 2 ushered in a new religion with a new liturgy. Montini sought to extinguish the Latin Mass but was met by an Archbishop who disobeyed the man he claimed was Pope. Hence, the modernists made some concessions and permitted restrictive use of the Latin Mass. Bergoglio is simply acknowledging the fact that the NO and the TLM express two different faiths. He should be applauded for being honest vis a vis the status of the NO vs. the TLM. Ratzinger’s two forms of the same Rite was pure fantasy.

Anonymous said...

Tom A. said...

You can argue with the exact wording of Mr. Shaw from a legalistic viewpoint, but in essence Mr. Shaw is correct. Vatican 2 ushered in a new religion with a new liturgy. Montini sought to extinguish the Latin Mass but was met by an Archbishop who disobeyed the man he claimed was Pope. Hence, the modernists made some concessions and permitted restrictive use of the Latin Mass. Bergoglio is simply acknowledging the fact that the NO and the TLM express two different faiths. He should be applauded for being honest vis a vis the status of the NO vs. the TLM. Ratzinger’s two forms of the same Rite was pure fantasy.

A traditionalist could be a Catholic who accepts the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( with no exceptions), the Athanasius Creed ( all need the Catholic faith with no known exceptions), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( all need Catholic faith for salvation with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance not being objective exceptions to EENS).
A liberal is a Catholic who does not accept these documents, with no exceptions,since he or she uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II, BOD and I.I etc.So there is a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition for the liberal.
The SSPX and FSSP too would be liberals too since they use a false premise to change the understanding of these Church documents.
What they have in common with Cardinal Kasper,Cardinal Ladaria, Archbishop Di Noia and Pope Francis is the use of the false premise and not the rational premise to interpret Church documents.

The Latin laity in Dijon,France could ask Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests, who will offer the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass, if they could interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise. In this way the whole diocese will return back to Tradition i.e extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions, the Athanasius Creed with no exceptions and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX with no exceptions.
So the theology of religions of the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath will have to theological basis in Vatican Council II.
If the bishop and diocesan priests continue to interpret Vatican Council II with a fake premise to create a New Ecumenism, this would be dishonest and unethical.The Latin laity could appeal to the Dijon secular Council, the local administration.
Tell them about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II which does not use false premise and which is not dishonest.

Anonymous said...

Tom A.
Ludwig Ott in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma accepted the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney(1949).This Letter(LOHO)wrongly assumed unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.
So LOHO says not everyone needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation. This is heresy and schism based upon a false premise( invisible cases of the BOD and I.I are visible exceptions to EENS).
So a New Theology was created which was accepted at Vatican Council II.
Now we have an EENS with BOD and I.I being exceptions or not being exceptions depending upon the choice of the Catholic.Not being exceptions is common sense..
Then we also have Vatican Council II with LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) etc being exceptions or not being exceptions for EENS( with no exceptions for me).
Then there is the Syllabus of Errors ( ecumenism of return) with BOD and I.I being exceptions. Also Unitatis Redintigratio 3 can be interpreted in both ways today.Etc etc.
This is first class heresy in the hierarch of truths ofr Pope John Paul II ( Ad Tuendem Fidem). Since the Athanasius Creed says all need Catholic faith for salvation and the LOHO says no, not all.
It is also a rejection of the First Commandment which say thou shalt have no other God but me. LOHO is saying that there is salvation in other religions or pagan beliefs whose worship is different

Anonymous said...

Tom A.
On the blog Musings of an Old Curmedgeon,it is assumed that what traditionalists believe in the past is also believed today. But this can be wrong.

A Wise Man Once Said
What Catholics once were, we are, If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong.

This is not true.
You accept the letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO) so you accept the New Theology and your Profession of Faith as a Catholic is different from mine and those of the popes and saints before the 1930's.
We are in the same Church but our theology and doctrines are different. You use a false premise for example to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition. I use a rational premise to project Vatican Council II as a continuity with EENS with exceptions and the rest of Tradition.

'What Catholics once were, we are ?.
If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong ?.

No. Catholics down the ages were not wrong.But when a false premise is used by Catholics to interpret Vatican Council II , the Creeds and Catechisms then the Catholics today are wrong. They have to correct the error.