Words Have Meaning
This is a short essay on the topic of the Novus Ordo Mass, a liturgy imposed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy following Vatican II.
First of all, we must know what the term Novus Ordo means. Taken from the Latin it means “New Order”. There can be no debate about this and if the reader has any doubt, ask any Latin scholar and the answer will be the same. The Novus Ordo is a striking departure from the liturgy of the Mass, mandated in perpetuity by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, which had been in use in Roman Catholicism for centuries (not my words by the words of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in their letter to Pope Paul VI).
Recall to mind, if you will, the New Testament passage wherein Saul, as he was then known, was knocked off his horse on his way to Damascus (to persecute the Christians). Saul was known as a very intense persecutor of the early Christians. Christ who said: “Saul, Saul…why dost thou persecutest me”... was getting the future apostle’s attention in a most dramatic and effective way.
Well, after his conversion St. Paul as we now know him, the Apostle of the Gentiles, in his Epistle to the Romans says: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” [Rom 1:8]
Strong words wouldn’t you say? Read what follows about the term “anathema”:
“All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: ‘If any one says (thus and so) let him be anathema’”. (An example would be: “If anyone says that Christ is not the Son of God, let him be anathema.”)
“At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.” [Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight]
But that’s not all. In his second Epistle to the Thessalonians Paul says: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle” [Thess 2:14]
Would not anyone who believes St. Paul was under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit in his writings maintain that the “Novus Ordo”, as it represents something drastically new, and in the mode lex orandi,lex credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of belief) is in direct contradiction to the foregoing? But don't take my word for it, take the words of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in their letter to Pope Paul VI as implementation of the Novus Ordo was being considered: "The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae--considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted--represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent."
Now folks, really, there can be no denial of the fact that the Novus Ordo, as it is seen in many churches today, is a striking departure from the traditional Latin Mass, sometimes termed the Tridentine Mass. There also can be no denial of anyone who is intellectually honest that “Novus Ordo” means new order and imposes many new liturgical deviations from the past. It would seem, then, that it is in direct opposition and contradiction to the warnings of St. Paul previously quoted.
Does this mean all Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo are going to Hell and the Bishops who prescribe it going along with them? Of course not - we are not to judge another’s intention; that is for the Supreme Judge. Hopefully, He will sort things out in His own way and in His own time. What we can say, however, is that for us, the traditional Latin Mass is the safest and most secure option in this incredibly evil world and the same criticisms applied to the Novus Ordo cannot be ascribed to the traditional Latin Mass.
What about the fact that the Novus Ordo emanated from an ecumenical council of the church, Vatican II. The following should dispel any doubt as to whether Vatican II was "pastoral" in nature or promulgating doctrine and therefore infallible. The most explicit confirmation that Vatican II was not promulgating infallible doctrine was given by Pope Paul VI, himself, in a locution on Jan.12, 1966, when he stated that: "Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extra- ordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (A. de Lassus, Vatican II: Rupture or Continuity, (French publ.), p. 11).
Does this mean we can completely disregard the documents of Vatican II and that which flowed from it (i.e., the Novus Ordo)? The answer is no for we are obliged to consider carefully all that emanates from an ecumenical council (Vatican II) just as we are obliged to consider carefully all the statements made by the Pope and Bishops whether together in council or not. But, and here is the key difference, we are not obliged to accept all pronouncements and changes as infallible unless they fit the criteria of infallibity as defined in Vatican I.
Indeed, we are bound to consider them and apply to them Tradition, our doctrinal training and education, our catechetical development, statements of past councils and, if our conscience is moved to disobey such pronouncements, we must do so with the greatest reluctance and regret, always striving to give affirmation whenever possible. So, in the end the responsibility is a grave individual one, one which we must exercise very carefully and with due reflection and investigation.
We must always remember that we will be judged on whatever path we choose to take. It is a solemn and awesome responsibility and one we dare not take lightly.
Now, on the subject of sedevacantism and why I do not hold to that view. We all know the words of Our Lord that He will be with His church for all time. And, we know that He also gave to Peter the keys of binding and loosing. Further, we know that the First Vatican Council proclaimed the dogma of papal infallibility, defining it in a very limited sense. But, we also know that Our Lord is All-Good and can not countenance evil. So, we must assume that in binding and loosing He would sustain or bind only that which is good. In other words, it is impossible for an All-Good, Triune God to confirm evil or untruth. And, we also know that there have been bad popes in the history of the church (thankfully, not too many bad popes). But, we also know that not one pope, ever, tried to proclaim, ex cathedra, a dogma to be held by the universal church using his authority as Supreme Pastor and Vicar of Christ on earth that was untrue. Then too, there is the matter of judging others and their motives which we leave up to the All-Knowing power of Almighty God. We judge their actions yes, but only when necessary for our own spiritual welfare.