[NYer]

I can't help but think that there is indeed a desire to separate from communion with the Pope and those in communion with him based on my observation of how the N.O. and those who attend it are denigrated by some traditionalists.

Yes! And there is an apt term for those who separate themselves from the Pope. COWARDS . These individuals lack the courage to stand up for what they know to be true, using actual documentation from Vatican II. That would entail too much work! It's far easier (oh, I know ultima ratio will jump on that phrase) to join a schismatic group and defend them. Just one more spear driven into our Lord. Christ, knowing full well that Peter would deny him 3 times, entrusted the church into his hands, promising: "I am with you all days, even unto the end of time." The schismatics lay claim to that heritage and enshrine their liturgy in a museum. Ironically, even they can't agree on the proper missal ... the one prior to, or after, Pope John XXIII made changes to the text.

[ultima ratio]

Now we're COWARDS. We're also "sons of Satan" and "sissies." And, of course, as always, "schismatic." Any more such intelligent arguments?

Here is an intersting quote from Christopher Ferrara in my most recent copy of The Remnant: "It is precisely the growing momentum in favor of the traditionalist position that has provoked the neo-Catholic establishment to descend to character assassination--the last resort of the man without an argument."

Or woman without an argument, I might add. Here's another Ferrara beaut: "The neo-Catholic defense of novelty in the Church has forced neo-Catholic commentators into the position of condemning views that are nothing but defenses of prior papal teachings." The truth of this is undeniable, even by you.

[ultima ratio]

Since you mention Vatican II, try this on for size:

"The driving force behind their tirades against Traditionalism is Vatican II. This non-infallible, non-dogmatic, pastoral council--a council which, when compared to the rest of our dogmatic history, stands in the precarious position of being forced to issue a disclaimer about the binding authority of its novel formulations, and which, by the stroke of a papal pen in the future could be summarily overturned--is nevertheless, THE defining moment in 2000 years of Catholicism for these people. Even though the most recent statistics show the dismal failure of the Council's innovations to help the Church (since all major categories of religious life have drastically declined: priests, nuns, brothers, seminaries, Catholic schools, catechetical training, etc), still, the neo-coservatives and liberals hold on to this illusive dream for a 'springtime' in a Church that, as measured by our latest sex scandal, is falling apart at the seams."

--Robert Sungenis.

The problem, of course, is that you and others who share your perspective, are terrified at the very thought that maybe, just maybe, connecting the dots leads to--the Vatican itself. Sungenis again:

"That picture is just too horrifying for them to accept. When the truth gets THAT close, the 'Catholic way of thinking' takes over and dictates to them that the Vatican simply cannot be implicated in such things. Even if it is known that the Vatican is knee-deep in these capitulations [to outrages bordering on heresy], the neo-conservatives tell us we must accept these decisions as docile sheep being led to the slaughter. Even though four Vatican cardinals, elevated by the Pope and placed by him at the heads of the highest commissions on ecumenism, have taught precisely the same message...that Jews are not required to be baptized for salvation since they have their own salvific covenant with God, still the neo-conservatives will not allow themselves to admit to their readers that the heresies in the "Reflections" document emanate from the top."

--Robert Sungenis

[Scupoli]

Well that was nasty. But I've come to expect little more from some of you. No where have I ever 'separated' myself from the Pope. I have pointed out that it is not unlawful to question the Pope, contrary to modernist heresy. If I am a coward, then I stand in good company. Read on to see what other cowards in our history had to say on this matter.

Limits on Papal Authority

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (CA. 400-CA. 450)

"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)

POPE ST. GREGORY I, "THE GREAT" (590-604)

The Eucharistic Canon remained unchanged from Apostolic times to the present day, with the exception of one short clause inserted by St. Gregory the Great. The phrase Pope Gregory added was "diesque nostros in tua pace disponas" [may you order our days in Thy peace] to the Hanc Igitur of the Canon. The Romans were outraged at this act and threatened to kill the pope because he had dared to touch the Sacred Liturgy. The Mass was affirmed to be complete and unchangeable. Since that time no pope has dared to change the Ordo of the Traditional Latin Mass, until in 1962 Pope John XXIII added "beati Ioseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi" [of blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin] to the Communicantes of the Canon.

POPE INNOCENT III (CA. 1160-1216)

"The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.'" (Sermo 4)

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, O.P. (1225-1274)

"Hold firmly that your faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."

"There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects....'

"Some say that fraternal correction does not extend to the prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven, or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected. And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them, but in their favour, since the admonishment is for their own sake .... For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be corrected by their subjects." (IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2)

ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA (1347-1380)

Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation. (To Pope Gregory IX, 1376.)

JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA O.P. (1388-1468)

"Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,... it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over despiciendus)...." (Summa de Ecclesia [1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated by the Council of Florence and later re-asserted by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)

ST. GIACOMO TOMMASO DE VIO GAETANI O.P. (1469-1534)

"Where the Pope is, there is also the Church" holds true only when the Pope acts and behaves as the Pope, because Peter "is subject to the duties of the Office"; otherwise, "neither is the Church in him, nor is he in the Church." (Apud St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 39, Art. 1, ad 6)

POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523)

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334)."

ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, S.J. (1542-1621)

"Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed." (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)

FRANCISCO SUAREZ, S.J. (1548-1617)

"If [the pope] gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence." (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)

VENERABLE POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878)

"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him."

FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN (1869-1870)

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles."

------------------------------------

Are the two of you "more Catholic" than these Popes and Saints?

[ultima ratio]

Regarding the changes in the old Missal prior to the Novus Ordo. It has always been acknowledged popes had the right to make minor changes. These have always been doctrinally insignificant, most often barely noticeable--ever since the fifth century. For instance, some kneeling might be authorized instead of standing, or a sign of the cross would be added or removed. In '65, for instance, John XXIII added St. Joseph's name to the Hanc Igitur, a very insignificant shift.

What Bugnini did was not this. He re-wrote the Mass in terms of Protestant theological principles, along the lines of the Lutheran Lord's Supper worship service. He changed the Mass radically, destroying its sacrificial structure and eliminating any reference to expiation for sins. He broke with the old Mass in a fundamental way and in a way that had already been condemned by Trent. Not only this, but modernists sought to ban the saying of the old Mass--not legally, since it was never officially abrogated--but unofficially, by punishing priests who dared to keep to the old liturgy. And the people recognized this assault on Tradition. The Church has never recovered from this blow to its integrity and has been in crisis ever since. Mass attendance by the faithful plummeted from 80%+ before the New Mass to somewhere around 25% in just a few years. It is now around 17% and falling.

So don't give me this stuff about missals before the Novus Ordo. There never was a break in Tradition up till that point. With the Novus Ordo you had the beginning of a new religion, complete with a new way of worshiping.