From what I've gathered, Milkman holds the view of the late Fr. Wathen (even if he didn't get it directly from him) that the Novus Ordo somehow wasn't technically promulgated and therefore fails to fall under the protection from error that the Church has in all official liturgical rites.
This position is idiotic, as St. Pius V used almost the exact same words in the promulgation of his missal. Its a cop out: it allows one to think the Novus Ordo is evil and still not be a sedevacantist. This of course doesn't work. If Paul VI was a valid pope, then he promulgated a valid mass. To say otherwise would mean the Church could give evil with her divine authority. Its like the Holy Ghost giving us the finger.
Your position is the cop-out, neel. For what do you have to do when you believe the Church with Pope Benedict XVI as Her head is not the real Church. You don't have to do anything for Her. It certainly makes it all the more difficult to explain to people. How more more idiotic is it to believe a conspiracy of the whole Catholic hierarchy, Pope included? Why would they allow the Tridentine Mass at all then? You are judging the priests of the Church of evil which is not at all evident and contrary to their obvious sincerity. Do you know the hearts of men, neel?
I only say what I can see, which is, a non-universally legislated missal which has borne little or no fruit and which has clear connection with heresy and freemasonry in its original itself definition and in the persons of it's makers.
Pardon the disjunctive nature of this post, it became that way as I wrote it, since I have not taken the time to read most of the thread, and as I wrote I would look on the thread and append to my post.
I honestly think much of the argumentation coming from the side of CMM is relatively moot, given that the same sort of movement of appeal to invalid form being a cause for such wickedness to emanate from the head of the Novus Ordo Church cannot be used in the case of Vatican II, since it is absolutely obvious that it not only was universal, moral unanimity attained at that time but also it seems to me that it must have even improved, so to speak, after the council had completed its confection. His statement concerning neel not doing anything for the Church is a falsehood, since neel is still subject to the laws of 1917 and the traditions of the Church, which is no less than what the SSPX does, and he is obliged to do, and does, (in a certain sense) infinitely more than what those who are widely considered in communion with Rome do.
Concerning CMM's last assertion from the quote, that there is no way to know the hearts of the last four, it is positively clear that the law presumes guilt on behalf of the offenders, and that among those who persist in communicatio in sacris
, there can be no question that they are ipso facto
excommunicated. With that said, if, however, the validly of form for the NOM was in fact the crux of the matter as CMM suggests, we may look at the fruits of it, which are effeminacy, heresy, pedophilia, sodomy, feminist agenda spreading within the Church, in the NO Church, and without, etc. The past two sitting in St. Peter's chair, so to speak, including the present one, have excommunicated virtually no one for heresy, even concerning the heretics teaching seminaries, at a time when there is and has been more heresy than ever before. They have hidden pedophiles, they have engaged in false ecumenism, et al. Look at the signs.
Though, if I were compelled to argue on validity, strictly based on the form of the "promulgation", I would say that since exactly the same form used by PVI was used by St. P. V. to ensure validity, and that, since there has been absolute moral unanimity among those of the hierarchy of the Novus Ordo Church who wear red concerning the subject, there can be absolutely no doubt that, if P. VI were a valid pope, the NOM would be a valid missal, concerning which the Council of Trent would say, "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema." (Denziger 954.) (Such as neel has quoted.)
While calling the NOM and VII heretical in any way is not allowed here, the NOM has an incredibly erroneous and harmful prayer for the Jews in its Good Friday "liturgy", from which we may draw certain conclusions. The extent of this sacrilege knows no bounds:
The Novus Ordo Church prays:
"for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they many continue to grow in the love of His name
and in faithfulness to His covenant.
But the Roman Rite prays:
"for the perfidious Jews: that Our Lord and God may lift the covering off their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ Our Lord."
(The emphases were added by me.)
All 1,000 page doctrinal arguments aside, it just comes down to common sense to me.
Would a God who St. John tells us IS love, allow the very Church He founded and promised to be with till the end of time, promulgate an EVIL rite of Mass?
To allow His very Church to poison His flock with impious food all around the world for 40 years and counting?
While facing such a preponderance of evils flowing forth from the mouth of an apparently (not truly) promulgated missal, we may trust in Our Lord's declaration when He summed it up completely, saying, "...An enemy hath done this." (Mt 13:28)Edited for clarity and grammar.