>>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 agree with everything you said here, with the exception of this statement:
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.
Up to the point it was promulgated, it could have been called "questionable."
But the promulgation of the New Mass itself is equally questionable is just not defensible. The Liturgy is a matter of discipline over which the Church does have authority. As long as proper form and matter are present, the mass is valid.
The mass was promulgated by the Church, proper form and matter are present, therefore it is valid by its very nature.
There is nothing questionable about it now.
Its the mass, its valid, and its questionable promulgation is, in the end, a mute point.
To question the validity of the NO is ... I have no formal theological training whatsoever, so I do not know if the proper term is schismatic or heretical or what.
Its scandalous, I know that. And it undermines the faith of the average Catholic, leading to a questioning of our entire Faith.
And it sure as heck does not belong on this public forum.