Replies

The Novus Ordo is not Catholic

Many folks cry and wail at being labeled schismatic.

Frankly, I bristle at that label (as well as integrist) being applied far too often in an arbitrary manner. In fact, this was the source of my problems with Steve Hand.

Unfortunately, your statement here is the textbook illustration of schismatic.

The Novus Ordo is valid and licit when said according to the rubrics.

Feel free to discuss the wisdom of the prudential decision to promulgate this mass.

Feel free to discuss what you perceive to be the fruits of the NO.

Feel free to discuss the highjacking of VII and the substitution of its false spirit. Heck, discuss the equivocal language of VII.

But when you state The Novus Ordo is not Catholic expect to be rightfully labeled a SCHISMATIC!

>>But when you state The Novus Ordo is not Catholic expect to be rightfully labeled a SCHISMATIC!

Actually, that's not correct. Perhaps you could call him a heretic. But even at it's worst, it doesn't make him a schismatic.

Adhering to the SSPX might potentially make someone a schismatic. But the Vatican has ruled authoritatively in the Honolulu case that attendance by the faithful at an SSPX chapel does not constitute adherence to a schism.

The only ones ever formally reprimanded were Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated. Even Bishop de Castro Mayer was left out of the statement. So really those are the only ones you can really call schismatic, based on any statements from the competent authorities.

Now you could make the argument that priests of the SSPX are schismatic because they are more clearly adhering to a schism. But the Vatican itself has never made that argument. And the priests of Campos were received back into the Church without lifting any excommunication or decree of schism or such. They just had to sign a letter of adherence to the magisterium, but it made no derogatory reference to any presumed former condition.

Now in the case of laypeople, the Vatican HAS made a declaration that it is NOT schism to attend the SSPX. And it would be even further off base to call someone a schismatic merely for questioning the New Mass.

Could you call him a heretic, on the other hand? First of all, you want to avoid detraction and rash judgement. So you must assume that someone has the best intention. Is it obstinate adherence to a false doctrine to believe that the New Mass is "not Catholic."

Personally, I don't think so. Pope Paul VI's addresses which introduced the Novus Ordo are far from being considered infallible statements. And the promulgation of the New Mass itself is equally questionable.

Here's a question for you: "Does the Holy Spirit protect the ICEL?" If not, then how do we know that the translations we are hearing are accurate? On the contrary, we know for a fact that they are not accurate at all. So if 99% of all Masses in the US are done in English (or another vernacular), and the translations are not protected from error, then when you attend a Mass offered in the vernacular, you have no guarantee that the Mass meets the standards even of the New Mass, nonetheless the Latin Mass.

I say again, the Novus Ordo is not Catholic. It is Protestant. That is not to say it is not valid. Or licit. But theologically it is not Catholic, it is Protestant. It is dangerous therefore to the faith. Sorry if you think that makes me schismatic, but it happens to be true. It is a fabrication concocted by those who wished to appeal to Protestant sensibilities and it underscores the memorial meal Trent specifically condemned. It is decidedly unCatholic. Liturgists know this--but do not openly admit it. They prefer to lie low and destroy the faith from within--which they are succeeding in doing.