Replies

1) Since Popes have authority over discipline, any Eucharistic Liturgy they promulgate ---if it has the proper matter and form--- is by its very nature Valid and Licit.

No Pope is bound in disciplinary matters by previous Popes.

1) Popes have authority over discipline. The Liturgy is a matter of discipline. As such, changes in discipline are prudential judgements, and not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error. However, since Liturgy is the primary means of catechesis in Faith and Morals, such changes are grave matters. And criticism of these prudential decisions is valid BUT can only be undertaken knowing that such criticism itself is a grave matter and should only be undertaken by those with a deep enough understanding of these issues that their criticism itself does not cause scandal or lead the innocent into schism or disobedience where obedience is due.

3) These are difficult times. Simply questioning and searching, honestly, does not make one a schismatic. Questioning the link between the current grave scandals and the changes in the Church since Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo mass does not make one a schismatic, though some conclusions drawn may clearly and onjectively be incorrect.

5)Denying Papal authority over the discipline of the Liturgy does make one schismatic.

6) Denying the Novus Ordo is valid and licit and orthodox or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it does make one schismatic.

7) Questioning the fruits of the Novus Ordo, the quality and quantity of its catechesis, and pointing out where and when it becomes illicit or invalid is not schismatic.

8) Questioning the prudential judgement of the Pope can be done charitably in some circumstances but most often lately such questioning has itself been imprudent.

"As such, changes in discipline are prudential judgements, and not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error."

That bears on our discussion on the other thread wrt Satan deceiving men in the Church heirarchy.

IMO, errors have been made.

"...that their criticism itself does not cause scandal or lead the innocent into schism or disobedience where obedience is due."

The razor's edge.

"Questioning the link between the current grave scandals and the changes in the Church since Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo mass does not make one a schismatic, though some conclusions drawn may clearly and onjectively be incorrect."

As I have remarked before, the differences between the two camps here don't seem to me sufficient to justify all the rancor.

"Questioning the fruits of the Novus Ordo, the quality and quantity of its catechesis, and pointing out where and when it becomes illicit or invalid is not schismatic."

Perhaps the laity should go further than that in urging the Holy Father to put things right. These current scandals seem at last to have gotten him off the dime wrt homosexual clergy; perhaps a quiet mutiny among the faithful would wake him up wrt liturgical abuses.

"Questioning the prudential judgement of the Pope can be done charitably in some circumstances but most often lately such questioning has itself been imprudent."

Those who care deeply are often passionate.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendix3.html

<>Quo Primum link. Polycarp, you know the facts but the schismatics sharks prefer to roll back their eyes and strike blindly. Even though this could warn them away from attacking the Rock, they willl ignore it, swarm, attack, and shatter their teeth...no matter, they will grow new ones to attack another day. Schismatic Sisyphus Sharks<>