Replies

Most of the schismatics say that the Novus Ordo is invalid, that it is Protestant, that it fosters dissent and even clerical abuse.

For the record:

I do not believe I am a schismatic. First and foremost I'm Roman Catholic.
I do believe, that due to obvious signs of manifest heresy which have been propagated at the Vatican II "Robber's" Council, that the Holy See is indeed vacant as per Pope Paul IV's Cum Ex Apostolatus:
If ever at any time it appears that... the Roman Pontiff has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy before assuming the papacy, the assumption, done even with the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, stands null, invalid and void; nor can it be said to become valid, or be held in any way legitimate, or be thought to give to such ones any power of administering either spiritual or temporal matters; but everything said, done and administered by them lacks all force and confers absolutely no authority or right on anyone; and let such ones by that very fact (eo ipso) and without any declaration required to be deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title, authority, office, and power.
and per Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code which states
All offices shall be vacant ipso facto (without a declaration required) by tacit resignation. . . by public defection from the Catholic Faith.
Consequently, as I'm Catholic, I'm under no obligation to follow or obey John Paul II. . . and it would also follow that I have to hold the opinion that the novus ordo is invalid, as there is no legitimate authority in place to even introduce it.
Even if I were to believe there is still a pope, I still hold the novus ordo is still invalid based on Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum which forbids the use of any missals which have not been in existence for at least 200 years at the time the decree was promulgated. Since the novus ordo came into existence almost 35 years ago, it does not qualify to be used.
I also believe that a not even a pope has no right to make a break with Apostolic tradition nor to come up with new innovations; the duty for the pope is to be the guardian of the Deposit of Faith and Sacred Tradition, a duty affirmed by the Papal Coronation Oath and the Tridentine Profession of Faith.
I believe that the post-conciliar church and faith is a totally different one from the one Our Lord handed down to His Blessed Apostles. It is also schismatic, as per Abp. Lefebvre:
That the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.
This Conciliar Church is schismatic, because it has taken as a basis for its updating, principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church, such as the new concept of the Mass expressed in numbers 5 of the Preface to (the decree) Missale Romanum and 7 of its first chapter, which gives the assembly a priestly role that it cannot exercise; such likewise as the natural — which is to say divine — right of every person and of every group of persons to religious freedom.
This right to religious freedom is blasphemous, for it attributes to God purposes that destroy His Majesty, His Glory, His Kingship. This right implies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and all the Masonic freedoms.
The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.
I do, recognize that the definitive and authoritative resolution to this issue rests with the magisterium of the Church (we'd have to wait for the next true pontificate at least). The route I'm taking, however, is based on sound logic and Catholic teaching.