CathInfo.com

Why should I have to go through such exhausting mental gymnastics to realize what is evident?

It's not mental gymnastics, it's a matter of law.  To enact, revise or revoke a law requires a PROCESS and one that cannot be done willy-nilly, haphazardly, etc.  Law is very precise and must be.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean anything.  First, are you trained to understand it?  Second, do you have the patience/personality to WANT to understand it?  I would say 'no' to both for you.  (and I don't mean that as a criticism).  Many people might have the WANT, but not the training to read legal docuмents and to read the legal interpretation of what they mean.  I'm not a lawyer but i've had some legal-related jobs.  I'm not an expert at all, but my point is, if you're not used to reading legal docuмents, it will seem like a different language (which it is). 

If you want to learn legal stuff, and become self-taught, then go for it.  But describing legal details as "mental gymnastics" is wrong.  I mean, if I try to read the Church Fathers interpretation of Scripture, where they talk about Greek and Hebrew meanings and tranlsations, wouldn't it be wrong, impatient, and stupid for me to say "well, they're just being too detailed and full of themselves when they talk about this or that meaning, or singular vs plural.  Just give us a translation and be done with it."  That would be a very rash and impatient response.  THE MEANING OF LANGUAGE MATTERS, especially in law!

----

The Novus Ordo Mass is an invalid rite, not because it did not come from the "Infallible Magisterium" or because the wording "all vs. many" or the priest facing the people, nor the altar girls or the immodest women at the rail; but for the simple reason that the ONLY person on earth with the power of introducing and approving new rites for the Church, this is, the Sovereign Pontiff, was an illegitimate impostor.

He was a false Pope.

I suspect it because of the Magisterial contradiction in the setting of an Ecunemical Council. Mainly in the docuмents Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate; and Dignitatis Humanae.

Ok, so you're saying Paul VI was a false pope because V2 contradicts Tradition, right?  But WHEN did he become a false pope?  Before or after the council?
Your statement above indicates that you say he was an imposter BECAUSE OF the council, which means he was validly elected and a valid pope AT THE START OF the council?  Yes?

The Tridentine Catechism makes mention of the existence of "many solemn rites and ceremonies" used in the Sacrifice of the Mass, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous.

If Paul VI was indeed Pope, you are not allowed to condemn his Novus Ordo rite without falling into Anathema.

Cantarella,

If you read the address given by Pope Paul VI when he announced the Novus Ordo you will see that he dates the liturgical development to the  Pian Commission which began in 1948 under secretary Annibale Bugnini. Paul VI specifically says that the Novus Ordo has its roots in the 1955 changes to Holy Week. What also may be of interest to you to learn is that Bugnini in his book published in 1990, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948 to 1976, says that the first principles of liturgical reform were adopted by the Pian Commission from the very beginning, never changed, and were consistently applied throughout his tenure.
 
Any traditional Catholic association using any Roman Missal published after 1955 is using a Bugnini transitional Missal.  The current common usage of the 1962 Indult Missal that is in common usage, is in fact a Bugnini transitional Missal.  When Bugnini was asked in 1962 (the mid-point of his liturgical leadership) if that version of the Missal was his last, he replied:
 

“Not by any stretch of the imagination. Every good builder begins by removing the gross accretions, the evident distortions; then with more delicacy and attention he sets out to revise particulars.  The latter remains to be achieved for the Liturgy so that the fullness, dignity and harmony may shine forth once again.”
The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Fr. Alcuin Reid

There were several versions of transitional Missals between 1962 and the publication of the Novus Ordo, all of which were approved by Paul VI before the final Novus Ordo. The 1962 Missal had all the "gross accretions, the evident distortions" of the immemorial "received and approved" Roman rite of Mass removed by Bugnini, and this continued right up to 1969 with hardly a month passing by without some new corruption being imposed. In fact, except for the three additional canons, there was very little "new" about the Novus Ordo in 1969 that had not already been implemented.
 
Not only is it a dogma that the "received and approved" rites may not be changed by "any pastor of the churches whomsoever," it is also required from the Council of Florence that every pastor offer the Mass according to the "custom" of his rite. The acceptance of the "received and approved" rite was incorporated into the Tridentine Profession of Faith.  It is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.
 
Since you hold the pope as your rule of faith and believe that liturgical worship is a matter of mere Church discipline, then you have no doctrinal or moral ground to reject his form of worship. I hold dogma as the rule of faith and keep to the "received and approved" rites of the Catholic Church. I formally reject the notion that the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions of the Church are matters of mere discipline but are necessary attributes of the faith by which it can be known and communicated to others. I also hold to the Catholic moral principle that no human authority has the power to impose anything injurious to the faith, and that every Catholic is morally required to reject anything that is injurious to the faith. Furthermore, I have submitted this Rome as is my right as a baptized Catholic for a formal definitive Magisterial judgment which I am morally bound to do.

None of this requires getting rid of the pope which leads only to greater error, formal heresy, and ultimately despair.
 
Drew

The Tridentine Catechism makes mention of the existence of "many solemn rites and ceremonies" used in the Sacrifice of the Mass, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous.

If Paul VI was indeed Pope, you are not allowed to condemn his Novus Ordo rite without falling into Anathema.

Quo Primum was made a law AFTER the council of Trent.  The only rites and ceremonies allowed AFTER Quo Primum are 1) those rites 200+ years old as of 1570ish, 2) Tridentine rite.  That's it.

Since the law hasn't changed, then as of today, the only 2 categories of masses/rites are the 2 above.  Paul VI can create a new rite all he wants, but it is illegal to use it.