So sorry, Cassini ... 

  

Many "Catholics" don't believe in contraception being a sin for example, so I guess they're not Catholic? If I'm wrong, please correct me.

.

Correct. Such people are not Catholic. The sinfulness of contraception is Catholic dogma, taught since the beginning in tradition and authoritatively defined by Pius XI in Casti Connubii.

Novus Ordo Ordinations, the origin, history, and the intent of the Rite ... they're all identical to the factors that rendered Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void" .. in addition to having changed the essential form.  Pope Leo XIII's teaching is crystal clear that the NO must be considered at least to labor under postiive doubt and quite possibly to be simply invalid.  There's no question, however that this causes positive doubt in an objective sense, which for all practical intents and purposes means that we are to treat them as invalid

You are mistaken. The Angelican Orders have no bearing on the Novus Ordo Ordinations. You are simply re-regurgitating Rama Coomaraswarmy's errors. 

I was blessed to pick up among our chapel's second-hand books that are for sale last Sunday, a 1956 book called 'Anglican Orders: Defect in Intention' by a Jesuit Father Francis Clark, who made a detailed study of the issue. He writes that while it was clear that the Form was lacking for validity, it is not so clear to the public what was meant by "defect of intention" which Leo XIII stipulated was a "separate root of invalidity". Now there is a helpful chapter entitled 'The Meaning of the Bull' (p.78) which establishes that 'the defect in intention' is referring to the personal defect in the intention of the ordaining minister; that is, the 'intention, to do as the Catholic Church does' was conclusively missing in the actual ministers using the rite. He further explains that while "The interior intention of the minister's mind is not per se open for inspection...(however) it is attainable per accidens, namely through its outward manifestation in his words or deeds, and it is under under that aspect that it can and must be judged." This outward manifestation of the Anglican rite, explains Pope Leo, was "substituting one rite for another" by purposely removing and obliterating 'all traces of sacrifice, of consecration of the priesthood, of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice' in the Catholic sense. The Holy Father then goes on to stress that as this obliteration was done by "a party filled with known and proved animus against the Mass and the Catholic Church, it is clear that the truncated (suppressed/shortened) formula of ordination" - which was not admitted/formulated by the Church - was purposely formulated for ministers who did not intend to do as the Church does.

With regards to the new Catholic Ordination rite - admitted by the Church itself - the Form is not defective. The Holy Ghost is clearly evoked and the Sacrament being conferred is stated immediately after. Two essential elements present.

The surrounding prayers, while stripped down in comparison to the traditional rite, do still clearly define the sacrificial and sacramental nature of the priesthood: eg: : "(This new priest-elect) is called to share in the priesthood of the bishops and to be molded into the likeness of Christ, the supreme and eternal Priest. By consecration he will made a true priest of the New Testament, to preach the gospel, sustain God's people, and celebrate the liturgy, above all, the Lord's sacrifice." 


Also " Your ministry will perfect the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful, the sacrifice which is offered sacramentally through your hands....(also) when you baptize, you will bring men and women into the people of God. In the sacrament of penance, you will forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church. With holy oil you will relieve and console the sick." And in the words of the bishop "Are you resolved to celebrate the mysteries of Christ faithfully and religiously as the Church has handed down to us for the Glory of God and the sanctification of Christ's people."

This new rite was not formulated by "a party filled with KNOWN and PROVED animus against the Mass and the Catholic Church."

Pope Leo XIII was ruling against the creation of an outside party that had made it clear that they did not recognise the  authority of Rome; that they did not believe that all the sacraments could confer grace as the Catholics believe. None of the reasons for this Papal condemnation tally with the Catholic new Ordination rite. Furthermore, you sir, have absolutely no authority to declare on a rite of the Church as if you were Pope. You treat the Church as if Christ, having founded this same said Church, and invested over 2,000 years into her, has now suddenly given up on her, and transferred His authority to a fallible individual called 'Ladislaus' to personally mouth off against His Church with.

Car companies have figured out that muted colors (gray/black/white) are more likely to see well, so they mass produce those colors (and charge extra for anything with a little color in it). The only cars nowadays that are brightly colored by default are luxury sports cars (Lamborghini, Ferrari, etc). 

My car is black, but only because I was buying used and thus didn't have a choice. 

I agree with Seraphina.

I believe it's one thing to believe that contraception is not a sin, it's yet another thing to practice contraception, and yet still another thing to preach contraception. In the last two cases, if one was once a Catholic, their sin of practicing/preaching it  does not mean that they cease to be a Catholic, rather, it means they are still Catholic in the state of mortal sin and are in need of repenting and being absolved by the priest in confession.

If they only believe contrary to what the Church teaches, then I would say that it's at least grave error and likely a sin, as PPIX teaches in Tuas Libenter: "though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure."

Well-said.