Replies

Even sinkspur, who's about as modern a Catholic as you're going to find on FR, is not opposed to the establishment of a Tridentine Rite.

You're exactly right.

Yet, the more radical among the traditionalists want nothing less than the total eradication of the Novus Ordo.

A Tridentine Rite would be the best thing to happen, all around.

If all the errors in the novus ordo could be rectified, I'm sure most traditionalists wouldn't be opposed to it's continued use. Of course, if all the errors were improved, you'd probably be left with the traditional Latin Mass - or something very similar. It's not uncharitable to prevent fellow Catholics from falling into error - even if some of them are quite happy to remain in blissful ignorance of the Truth. On the subject of error, it may surprise you to learn that the very words of consecration used by Our Lord have been corrupted in the English version of the novus ordo.
"Pro multis" doesn't mean "for all".
Even the protestant children's bible has the correct translation.
Now, you can get blast the messenger - or oppose the problem.

From what I've seen a Tridentine Rite is out of the question, as there is an objection to the idea that the Novus Ordo is a different rite than the old Mass.

But the apostolic administration that SSPX was allegedly offered would have had the same practical effect.

I hope I'm not being uncharitable when I wonder why Cdl. Maida waited until he is within a year of retirement age before granting the indult.

I suppose it could be that there is an increased interest in the Traditional Latin Mass these days.

Preconciliar popes taught unequivocally that treating all religions as equal and true is heretical. Yet the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima has permitted the altar of a Fatima Shrine to be used for Hindu rituals--even while FORBIDDING the Latin Tridentine Mass in his diocese. How perverse can the Novus Ordo get?

Let's face it--the two Masses reflect two different religions and not all the circumlocutions and lies and doubletalk can disguise the fact any longer. It is not Catholic to believe that all religions are true, that other religionists need not convert, that doctrinal differences do not matter as long as your heart's in the right place.

If the preconciliar popes were wrong--then so is the Catholic doctrine on the infallibility of the Magisterium. If this doctrine is wrong, then none of it is true, including whatever Rome teaches these days. The Novus Ordo can't have it both ways. It can't turn its back on the past yet insist on its own authority. By denying the past, it denies itself.

More than this, by denying the past, it is saying it agrees with Protestantism in its rejection of Magisterial authority, in its love for novelty, in its indifference toward established dogmas, and in its radical ecumenicism and openess to the spirit of the age. All of this is heretical and unCatholic.