[ultima ratio]

You are confused. I never said the new Mass was invalid. It is valid all right--but only sometimes these days, when priests trouble to use the proper form, matter and intention. Unfortunately, more and more priests are celebrating invalid Masses these days. Nevertheless, I will grant that the Novus Ordo is valid, generally speaking. But having said that, this is not saying much. A Black Mass, too, is valid, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

What I have been trying to point out is that the New Mass, despite such validity, is nevertheless harmful to the faith. It has systematically destroyed belief in the Divinity of Christ and in the Real Presence for millions of Catholics. As Pius XII said in Mediator Dei, the rule of praying is the rule of faith. If a Mass has been so thoroughly secularized so as to remove all sense of the sacred, then belief itself is seriously diminished. This is what happens with the Novus Ordo.

The second point to be made is to distinguish between the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium. The ordinary Magisterium is infallible ONLY in virtue of its repetition of a teaching or practice the Church has held since time immemorial. This would NOT include a novelty like the Novus Ordo which is doctrinally deficient and in open defiance of the Council of Trent. So your second point about indefectability would necessarily not apply.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima,

"Nevertheless, I will grant that the Novus Ordo is valid, generally speaking. But having said that, this is not saying much. A Black Mass, too, is valid, but that doesn't make it a good thing."

The words of one who no longer loves the Catholic Church, comparing the normative Mass of the Latin Rite to a black Mass.

sitetest

[JMJ333]

Your arguments aren't convincing, and I should warn you that I’m much easier to convince than He Whose command you are flouting.

One problem you may eventually discover, a problem that has plagued the Protestants and orthodox who have gone before you, is that not everyone is likely to agree with your estimation of what constitutes “going astray.” They, of course, would then be duty-bound to mitigate your temporal and eternal punishment by not following your lead.

The Church is indefectable, ultima. It cannot teach falsely, so I am not concerned about it going astray in its teachings. But the Church does have authority in some areas in which it is not infallible. In those areas, it can screw up. Personally, I think the decision to allow “altar girls” was a bad move. I disagree with it strongly. However, the Church is not obligated to follow my judgment in pastoral matters, and I am obligated to at least accept the Church’s judgment in those areas. So I do so, and yes, I think that’s a virtuous thing. It’s certainly much harder than simply insisting on getting my own way all the time.