First, I need to make the distinctions that Steven Hand makes at wwwTCRNews. He uses the term Cardinal Ratzinger uses for schismatic Traditionalists, i.e., "Integrists."
Since he states it well, I'll just recopy parts of it it here:
"Note on "Integrism / Integrists": There are degrees of Integrism, and not all are culpable...since many have no intention of challenging the authority of the Pope and the living magisterium or the Second Vatican Council, but only desire access to the Tridentine rite of Mass. Nothing we say here should serve as any indictment of these. The Integrist's, however, who (exclusively) concern us ...are the extreme, often schismatic, traditionalists who ...violate Catholic dogmatic teachings and then set themselves against the Holy Father, the Second Vatican Council and living magisterium, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc., in the interests of their private judgment which the Council of Trent condemned as heretical."
I love the Latin Mass and would attend it exclusively if it wasn't so far away from here. I think within several generations the Novus Ordo mass will quietly disappear, and a General Indult will restore the Tridentine Mass to its proper place. That being said I'm very worried about current developments among many conservatice Catholics.
There is only anger, discord, bitterness, and eventually loss of salvation at the end of the path schismatic traditionalists are taking, because the natural conclusion is that the Pope is either a heretic, or not a Pope at all, which is the sedevacantist position, and the Novus Ordo is invalid/illicit, in which case the Church since Vatican II has fallen into apostacy.
The question must be posed: If the schismatic Traditionalists/ Chris Ferrara, Atila Sinke Guimarães, Dr. Marian Horvat, Michael J. Matt, and John Vennari group are right in their interpretations of Vatican II, the current Magisterium, and the words, actions, and prudential judgements of Pope John Paul II, then...
...that means that Pope John Paul II, Mother Angelica, Bishop Bruskiwiecs, Archbishop Chaput, Fr. Fessio, Fr. Baker, Fr. Stravinskas, Fr Groeschel, Fr JOHN HARDON, and all other conservative orthodox Catholics are WRONG!!!
I CANNOT believe that the judgment and interpretations of these nasty schismatic Traditionalists (not to include the Traditionalists in the Church who accept the Indult of Pope JPII) and their interpretation of current events and the writings and actions of Pope John Paul II are CORRECT and that Mother Angelica, Bishop Bruskiwiecs, Archbishop Chaput, Fr. Fessio, Fr. Baker, Fr. Stravinskas, Fr Groeschel, Fr JOHN HARDON, and all other conservative orthodox Catholics are DECEIVED!!!
This is a very dangerous development. There is a real WAR brewing between Traditionalist Catholics and orthodox, conservative Roman Catholics over the real nature of the authority of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium and the orthodoxy of Pope John Paul II and his prudential judgment.
For the faithful Remnant, this battle will be littered with more mortally deadly landmines than the previous battles over liberals versus conservatives, because otherwise loyal Catholics would never fall for the sinister lies of the liberals, but they may very well be deceived by the more subtle and seductive distortions of the schismatic Traditionalists.
I think EVERYONE needs to be forewarned that a major battle is brewing in the Church and we all need to be prepared to discern the truth on these issues. I urge everyone to read those links I posted above on Traditionalists and the errors of the schismatics.
In these debates, start with the most obvious question, to separate the schismatic from the merely Traditional minded Catholic:
Is the new mass valid In other words, is Christ Truly Present?
You will get two answers.
1)Yes, it is valid.
2)No it is not valid.
If they answer yes, they may insist that in many if not most new masses, it is valid but not licit. They are probably correct. But at least they admit it is a valid mass and valid consecration.
If they answer no, they are schismatic. These will actually be a smaller minority. Most traditionalists sit on the fence of the validity question, unwilling to step into open schism on the issue.
For those that admit the new mass is valid but refuse to attend it none the less, a simple question:
"You believe Christ is truly present at the new mass, right? Then why do you refuse to attend it? If Christ's infinite presence is there, who are we to quibble over the accidentals, the discipline, the liturgy by which He came present to us? Is Christ your Lord, or just a mascot you bring forward with the old liturgy? If He is truly present, then its "good enough" for Him. Why isn't it good enough for you? If Christ is still present, then all the other points of debate are moot in comparison.
In response to all of the posts, I like the intelligent comments so far. I'm glad that the Catholic bashers haven't showed up yet. I was born after Vatican II, and I've yet to go to a Tridentine Mass. I think I would like it, since I love the sound of plainchant, and I've taken 2 years of Latin in high school and college. I don't know about you, but it seems like the "traditionalists" who are labeling everyone else "neo-Catholics" are more belligerent than the "neos" are towards them.
I think this sums up the schismatics position quite well.
There is only anger, discord, bitterness, and eventually loss of salvation at the end of the path schismatic traditionalists [Chris Ferrara, Atila Sinke Guimarães, Dr. Marian Horvat, Michael J. Matt, and John Vennari] are taking, because the natural conclusion is that the Pope is either a heretic, or not a Pope at all, which is the sedevacantist position, and the Novus Ordo is invalid/illicit, in which case the Church since Vatican II has fallen into apostacy.
Fron The Remnant's Position Statement:
"Within the Church, however, there are those who take this traditional Catholic counterrevolution too far--declaring that, since Vatican II helped to bring on all of this chaos and denial of Faith, then the popes who called the Council must not be legitimate popes. Many Catholics, who feel this way, believe that there is no legitimate pope presently in Rome, and that Pope John Paul is an impostor. The Remnant has decried this erroneous conclusion, insisting that the Church’s legitimate (though progressivist) pope is most certainly Pope John Paul II."A little farther down:
"Catholics cannot leave the Church, nor are they free to lambaste and deny the Pope at will for things like his "Altar Girl Permission" or the "Assisi Ecumenical Affair" or the convening of the Second Vatican Council. Catholic lay people must guard against this attitude, which is commonly referred to as "sede vacantism." Nevertheless, Catholics must wake up to the fact that the Church is in a state of unprecedented revolution and turmoil at present, and that, since the Council, she has undergone a near total spiritual breakdown."And it restates its defense of JPII as the current Pope:
"The Remnant is part of the "Loyal Opposition"-- it defends Pope John Paul as the legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and it also defends his strong stand on moral issues in the face of the Modern world. At the same time, The Remnant has publicly disagreed with Pope John Paul over his positions on such questions as ecumenism, granting the "altar girls" permission, consorting with the United Nations, and his unqualified and complete support of the Second Vatican Council and all of its unfortunate results.