The Novus Ordo Service: Renounce It Entirely

[Bonaventure]

I agree that claiming the NO is inherently or intrinsically a danger to the faith is not compatible with a sedeplenist position.  I think we avoid this problem when we allow for the theoretical existence of a NO Mass that is not a danger to the faith, even if we are not likely to encounter one.

That's like saying Hell exists but no one is in it.

"Oh, the NO is perfect and orthodox, we just haven found one yet."

A pipe dream.

It is not necessary to posit the NO being a perfect Mass. 

The liturgy, regardless of rite, is the most perfect way for man to worship God.

If one claims that it is not heretical, in itself, and theoretically capable of being celebrated without being a danger to the Faith, that is enough to be compatible with a sedeplenist position.

Of course. However, I was under the impression that this theoretical non-heretical NO was rarer than a holographic Charizard card.

And a person claiming that would have no trouble justifying renouncing the NO by saying that it is likely to be a danger to the Faith.

Depends. Intrinsically?

[LouisIX]

This is a much better argument for staying away from the NO than saying that it is not a Catholic Mass.  This argument is based on saying that it is a danger to the Faith.   Because we have a duty to protect the gift of Faith that has been bestowed on us, this is adequate reason to not fulfill one's Sunday obligation. 

Saying that the NO is not a Catholic Mass is not a position that makes sense for a sedeplenist.

A Catholic Mass cannot be a danger to the Faith. That would mean the Church has given the Faithful stones instead of bread..

That analogy isn't sufficient proof for your premise, however.  It'd be interesting to see the premise explicitly affirmed in Magisterial teaching, but as I've said before, no one really contemplated these issues because they would never have been anticipated.

Pius VI addresses it

...

[Teilo and a Half]

Do you wish to be a traditional Catholic?

Hmm, am I to listen to the "pontifications" of some anonymous internet poster? Is the act of faith contingent on the authority of God revealing or on the authority of some random malcontent?

This is what ultimately compelled me to abandon sedevacantism and traditionalism altogether. It's all about authority: whom am I to trust? Whom has been sent to be today's living successors of the Apostles?

[Kaesekopf]

Do you wish to be a traditional Catholic?

Hmm, am I to listen to the "pontifications" of some anonymous internet poster? Is the act of faith contingent on the authority of God revealing or on the authority of some random malcontent?

This is what ultimately compelled me to abandon sedevacantism and traditionalism altogether. It's all about authority: whom am I to trust? Whom has been sent to be today's living successors of the Apostles?

Yes, it is intrinsic to your salvation that you follow the decrees of some random guy online.  Didn't you get that memo or hear it from your local priest?

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Do you wish to be a traditional Catholic?

Hmm, am I to listen to the "pontifications" of some anonymous internet poster? Is the act of faith contingent on the authority of God revealing or on the authority of some random malcontent?

This is what ultimately compelled me to abandon sedevacantism and traditionalism altogether. It's all about authority: whom am I to trust? Whom has been sent to be today's living successors of the Apostles?

What if the answer to that question is unclear? Because I gotta tell you I know of very few catholic bishops. All of the "mainstream" are NOdans...all support Vat 2 heresys and nonsense ecumanism. They nearly all see nothing but saints after vat2...so I would trust the authority of historical Catholic legacy and anything that breeches that is of NO authority.

[Teilo and a Half]

Do you wish to be a traditional Catholic?

Hmm, am I to listen to the "pontifications" of some anonymous internet poster? Is the act of faith contingent on the authority of God revealing or on the authority of some random malcontent?

This is what ultimately compelled me to abandon sedevacantism and traditionalism altogether. It's all about authority: whom am I to trust? Whom has been sent to be today's living successors of the Apostles?

What if the answer to that question is unclear? Because I gotta tell you I know of very few catholic bishops. All of the "mainstream" are NOdans...all support Vat 2 heresys and nonsense ecumanism. They nearly all see nothing but saints after vat2...so I would trust the authority of historical Catholic legacy and anything that breeches that is of NO authority.

I understand why many people find the question quite puzzling, and these are evil and taxing times. The argument you have put forth was exactly what I used to justify my prior opinions, until another question arose: how am I to know when individuals (be they clerics or layfolk), or groups thereof, who purport to represent (or preserve, or transmit, &c.) the teachings of Holy Church and the Sacraments in an endeavor to preserve them from the modernists, are indeed doing what they profess to do? By what criterion or by what authority am I to judge which cleric or layman in the traditionalist movement is not mixing novelties, errors, personal prejudices, &c., with the endeavor to preserve the depositum fidei? How am I even to know if independent Priests/Bishops have valid Orders at all (forget about the training)? Of course, the big groups (SSPX, SSPV, CMRI) have some sort of system of checks and balances that enable the Catholic traditionalist to figure out the practical and logistical aspects of discerning the origin of a Priest's sacred Orders, evaluating his reputation, &c., but this alone cannot answer the above questions satisfactorily because no one traditionalist group can claim to be the Church of Christ.

Some had answered my queries by suggesting that I measure the clerics and laymen in question with the selfsame measure whereby they have evaluated the present day crises afflicting Holy Church, according to the word of Our Lord, "For with the same measure that you shall mete withal, it shall be measured to you again" (S. Luc. vi. 36). And so began my long journey away from the strict sedevacantist variant of traditionalism from whence I came.

[Teilo and a Half]

Yes, it is intrinsic to your salvation that you follow the decrees of some random guy online.  Didn't you get that memo or hear it from your local priest?

Awesomeness!

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Do you wish to be a traditional Catholic?

Hmm, am I to listen to the "pontifications" of some anonymous internet poster? Is the act of faith contingent on the authority of God revealing or on the authority of some random malcontent?

This is what ultimately compelled me to abandon sedevacantism and traditionalism altogether. It's all about authority: whom am I to trust? Whom has been sent to be today's living successors of the Apostles?

What if the answer to that question is unclear? Because I gotta tell you I know of very few catholic bishops. All of the "mainstream" are NOdans...all support Vat 2 heresys and nonsense ecumanism. They nearly all see nothing but saints after vat2...so I would trust the authority of historical Catholic legacy and anything that breeches that is of NO authority.

I understand why many people find the question quite puzzling, and these are evil and taxing times. The argument you have put forth was exactly what I used to justify my prior opinions, until another question arose: how am I to know when individuals (be they clerics or layfolk), or groups thereof, who purport to represent (or preserve, or transmit, &c.) the teachings of Holy Church and the Sacraments in an endeavor to preserve them from the modernists, are indeed doing what they profess to do? By what criterion or by what authority am I to judge which cleric or layman in the traditionalist movement is not mixing novelties, errors, personal prejudices, &c., with the endeavor to preserve the depositum fidei? How am I even to know if independent Priests/Bishops have valid Orders at all (forget about the training)? Of course, the big groups (SSPX, SSPV, CMRI) have some sort of system of checks and balances that enable the Catholic traditionalist to figure out the practical and logistical aspects of discerning the origin of a Priest's sacred Orders, evaluating his reputation, &c., but this alone cannot answer the above questions satisfactorily because no one traditionalist group can claim to be the Church of Christ.

Some had answered my queries by suggesting that I measure the clerics and laymen in question with the selfsame measure whereby they have evaluated the present day crises afflicting Holy Church, according to the word of Our Lord, "For with the same measure that you shall mete withal, it shall be measured to you again" (S. Luc. vi. 36). And so began my long journey away from the strict sedevacantist variant of traditionalism from whence I came.

Im not being snarky...it simple. At least in a few areas to begin with:
The Roman MASS:
Before:

After:

Before:

After:


Traditional:


NEW:


Traditional:

NEW:

I could go all night. Traditional is NOT a flavor of catholicism...it IS Catholicism. If it never existed before for 1963-4 years...and in less than 70 years it is now the "NORM" than logically it cannot be Catholic.
You need no authority than basic human intellect.

[Teilo and a Half]

You need no authority than basic human intellect.

I understand what you mean, but you have to be careful how to word this, because the Protestants have come at me with this same identical argument in order to dissuade me from Catholicism altogether.

That's not how Christ established His Church: He designated and sent Apostles, and they in turn designated and sent others as their successors, in order to constitute the magisterium of Holy Church, to preserve and pass down the deposit of the faith, by the infallible teaching authority and primacy of St. Peter and his successors in the Supreme Pontificate. Our Lord did not give this sacred mission to individual laymen. This is the very point that St. Francis de Sales emphasizes very strongly in his Catholic Controversies (reprinted by TAN).

To have certitude of seeing the "whole picture," the rationalists have reason (or what they think is reason), the materialists have science (or what they mistake for science), the Protestants have their (faulty) editions of the Bible to interpret as they see fit, &c., but the Catholics must have the Church to make sure that they indeed profess and practice the true faith, which is merely truth and reality that exists outside our individual minds as assured by divine revelation.

[Gottmitunsalex]

Do you wish to be a traditional Catholic?

Hmm, am I to listen to the "pontifications" of some anonymous internet poster? Is the act of faith contingent on the authority of God revealing or on the authority of some random malcontent?

This is what ultimately compelled me to abandon sedevacantism and traditionalism altogether. It's all about authority: whom am I to trust? Whom has been sent to be today's living successors of the Apostles?

What if the answer to that question is unclear? Because I gotta tell you I know of very few catholic bishops. All of the "mainstream" are NOdans...all support Vat 2 heresys and nonsense ecumanism. They nearly all see nothing but saints after vat2...so I would trust the authority of historical Catholic legacy and anything that breeches that is of NO authority.

I understand why many people find the question quite puzzling, and these are evil and taxing times. The argument you have put forth was exactly what I used to justify my prior opinions, until another question arose: how am I to know when individuals (be they clerics or layfolk), or groups thereof, who purport to represent (or preserve, or transmit, &c.) the teachings of Holy Church and the Sacraments in an endeavor to preserve them from the modernists, are indeed doing what they profess to do? By what criterion or by what authority am I to judge which cleric or layman in the traditionalist movement is not mixing novelties, errors, personal prejudices, &c., with the endeavor to preserve the depositum fidei? How am I even to know if independent Priests/Bishops have valid Orders at all (forget about the training)? Of course, the big groups (SSPX, SSPV, CMRI) have some sort of system of checks and balances that enable the Catholic traditionalist to figure out the practical and logistical aspects of discerning the origin of a Priest's sacred Orders, evaluating his reputation, &c., but this alone cannot answer the above questions satisfactorily because no one traditionalist group can claim to be the Church of Christ.

Some had answered my queries by suggesting that I measure the clerics and laymen in question with the selfsame measure whereby they have evaluated the present day crises afflicting Holy Church, according to the word of Our Lord, "For with the same measure that you shall mete withal, it shall be measured to you again" (S. Luc. vi. 36). And so began my long journey away from the strict sedevacantist variant of traditionalism from whence I came.

Im not being snarky...it simple. At least in a few areas to begin with:
The Roman MASS:
Before:

After:

Before:

After:


Traditional:


NEW:


Traditional:

NEW:

I could go all night. Traditional is NOT a flavor of catholicism...it IS Catholicism. If it never existed before for 1963-4 years...and in less than 70 years it is now the "NORM" than logically it cannot be Catholic.
You need no authority than basic human intellect.

Wonderful post.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

T.5
Your saying we can know nothing of ourselves? We can have no personal confidence in truth?

[Bonaventure]

This is what ultimately compelled me to abandon sedevacantism and traditionalism altogether. It's all about authority: whom am I to trust? Whom has been sent to be today's living successors of the Apostles?

I don't understand what exactly compelled you to abandon not only sedevacantism, but being a "trad" completely.

[Teilo and a Half]

T.5
Your saying we can know nothing of ourselves? We can have no personal confidence in truth?

What I am saying is that the Catholic needs the teaching authority of the Church in order to ascertain what is truly in the deposit of the faith and give assent thereto. You can have personal confidence in truth but you need the guidance of ecclesiastical magisterium to make that confidence concomitant with a supernaturally meritorious act of faith, or else how would you know what pertains to the Catholic faith if you have not the authority that Christ Himself established to teach you?

Unlike the Protestant, the Catholic needs and desires the Apostolic authority to guide him wheresoever he goes, whether in the realm of theoretical cogitation or in the field of applied morals and ethics: merely consulting texts should not ordinarily suffice for the very reason that Our Lord did not intend for His Church to be reduced to malleable textuality, which is what the Protestants did.

[Teilo and a Half]

This is what ultimately compelled me to abandon sedevacantism and traditionalism altogether. It's all about authority: whom am I to trust? Whom has been sent to be today's living successors of the Apostles?

I don't understand what exactly compelled you to abandon not only sedevacantism, but being a "trad" completely.

Well, in the before-time, in the long-long-ago, sedevacantism and traditionalism were indissolubly tied to one another for me: rejecting one would mean recanting the other. Now that I can make the distinction between these two, the questions that compelled me to recant sedevacantism are the very same ones that prohibited me from identifying myself as a "traditionalist" as some would have the term defined: the questions of Apostolicity, mission, jurisdiction, &c. It is a personal conviction, not something I wish to impose upon others. If I've given the contrary impression, I apologize.

I know there are very many, profound problems in the Church, and the more I have distanced myself from sedevacantism the clearer I can see just how complex and enormous is the cluster of crises that we witness in the Church today. It's pretty terrifying really.

[Bonaventure]

I see what you are claiming, and I would certainly deny your premise that traditional Catholics find themselves without a magisterium.

The current situation is difficult, but again, your approach does not solve the problem. I do not know how a man as knowledgeable as yourself could claim that, say, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops serve as the authority, the rule of Faith, for us layman.

As a Californian, my supposed shepherds have done nothing but fail me and the rest of the Faithful ever since the Second Vatican Council. This is merely one example in a world awash with stories of men in episcopal attire utterly failing their most minimal duties as Christians.