Fellay is surrounding the Neo-SSPX with the Novus Ordo. (The Neo-SSPX uses not the Traditional Latin Mass, but the Half Novus Ordo Vatican II "Mess of 1962," with its Novus Ordo-based Holy Week.)

3. And what is a Novus Ordo-based Holy Week? The revised Holy Week came before 1962, is completely Traditional, and has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo Missae. He makes himself look completely ignorant when he utters nonsense like this.
\

The 1962 Mass is not "half Novus Ordo". That is not just an exaggeration, that is a filthy lie. The 1962 is indistinguishable from the Mass he says (or pretends to say) on a regular basis. At least as it exists in the wild (every 1962 I've ever been to still has the double Confiteor, for example). Let's be honest when criticizing what and who we disagree with.

 
 
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm


[/url]    Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, an alleged Mason, directed the liturgical reform from 1948 until 1976.  The 1962 Missal, issued at the mid-point of his liturgical tenure, existed only about 2½ years.  It was regarded by Bugnini, who took credit for its authorship, as only a transitional Missal toward his ultimate goal of the Novus Ordo.  Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificuм said that the relationship of the 1962 Missal to the Novus Ordo is one of organic development, that “They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”
    This is true statement for Bugnini said in his book, The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1976, that the first principles of liturgical reform adopted by his commission, first principles that were novel, artificial ideological constructs, guided his work and remained absolutely consistent throughout his entire tenure.  The first principles guiding the formation of the 1962 Missal are the same principles that would give us the Novus Ordo.  When Bugnini was asked if the 1962 Missal represented the end of his liturgical innovations he said, “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).  Thus such feasts as the Solemnity of St. Joseph, the Chair of St. Peter at Rome, the Finding of the True Cross, St. John before the Latin Gate, and many, many other liturgical changes, considered “gross accretions and evident distortions” by those who would eventually give the Church the liturgical “fullness, dignity and harmony” of the Novus Ordo, were done away with in the 1962 Missal.
    It is a fact that the 1962 Missal has never been afforded the standing of Immemorial Tradition by Rome.  Every papal docuмent touching upon this Missal treats it entirely as a subject of Church discipline governed entirely by human positive law first under the norms of Ecclesia Dei as an Indult and now under the restrictive legal stipulations of Summorum Pontificuм as a grant of privilege by positive law.  At no time in the history of the Church has an immemorial liturgical tradition been reduced to the status of an Indult, which is the permission to do something that is not permitted by the positive law of the Church.  This constitutes presumptive proof that Rome does not regard the 1962 Missal as the Immemorial Roman Rite. 
    The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal was adopted by the SSPX in 1983 as their liturgical standard.
 
 
 
[url=#_edn2][ii][ii]   It perhaps one of the greatest errors of the last century that Catholics have regarded the Liturgy as entirely a matter of Church discipline and forgotten its essential relationship with Catholic dogma.  This error is refuted by the following quotations:

     "However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote).  For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.'  To this we can add that there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite.  In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition.  The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
     "There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope.  For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus).  In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
 
    "Liturgy and faith are interdependent.  That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology”. 
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

     Further evidence that the immemorial Roman Rite, our “received and approved” rite, is not a matter of simple discipline:
     The Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis, prescribes adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.”  The “received and approved rites” are the rites established by custom, and hence the Council of Trent refers to them as the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Sess. VII, can XIII).  Adherence to the customary rites received and approved by the Church is an infallible defined doctrine: The Council of Florence defined that “priests…. must confect the body of the Lord, each one according to the custom of his Church” (Decretum pro Graecis), and therefore the Council of Trent solemnly condemned as heresy the proposition that “ the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor whosoever.” 
Fr. Paul Kramer, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

     Pope Pius XII  said regarding the error of liturgists:
    “They wander entirely away from the true and full notion and understanding of the Sacred Liturgy, who consider it only as an external part of divine worship, and presented to the senses; or as a kind of apparatus of ceremonial properties; and they no less err who think of it as a mere compendium of laws and precepts, by which the ecclesiastical Hierarchy bids the sacred rites to be arranged and ordered."
Pope Piux XII,  Mediator Dei
 
    “‘Lex orandi, lex credendi’ -- the law for prayer is the law for faith”, and, “In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly”….. “The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church.” 
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei
 
    Pope Benedict XVI, said in his book, Spirit of the Liturgy:
     The Liturgy cannot be compared to a piece of equipment, something made, but rather to a plant, something organic that grows and whose laws of growth determine the possibilities of further development.  In the West there has been, of course, another factor involved.  This was the Papal authority, the Pope took ever more clearly the responsibility upon himself for the liturgical legislation, and so doing foresaw in a juridical authority for the forth setting of the liturgical development.  The stronger the papal primacy was exercised, the more the question arose, just what the limits of this authority were, which of course, no-one had ever before thought about.  After the Second Vatican Council, the impression has been made that the Pope, as far as the Liturgy goes, can actually do everything he wishes to do, certainly when he was acting with the mandate of an Ecuмenical Council.  Finally, the idea that the Liturgy is a predetermined ''given'', the fact that nobody can simply do what he wishes with her, disappeared out of the public conscience of the Western [Church].  In fact, the First Vatican Council did not in any way define that the Pope was an absolute monarch!  Au contraire, the first Vatican Council sketched his role as that of a guarantee for the obedience to the Revealed Word.  The papal authority is limited by the Holy Tradition of the Faith, and that regards also the Liturgy.  The Liturgy is no ''creation'' of the authorities.  Even the Pope can be nothing other than a humble servant of the Liturgy's legitimate development and of her everlasting integrity and identity.
Pope Benedict XVI, Spirit of the Liturgy
 
 
 
[iii][iii]   When Pope Nicholas II ordered the suppression of the Ambrosian Rite, he was opposed by the Catholics of Milan who refused his order.  This order was subsequently overturned by Pope Alexander II who declared it to have been “unjust.”  Further, human law, even the highest form of human law imposed by the pope, has all the limitations of every human law.  That is, it must be a promulgation of reason, by the proper authority, promoting the common good, and not in any way opposed to Divine or natural law.  As St. Thomas has said, an ‘unjust law is not a law.’  St. Thomas lists three principal conditions which must be met for any human law to be valid: 1) It must be consistent with the virtue of Religion; that is, it must not contain anything contrary to Divine law, 2) It must be consistent with discipline; that is, it must conform to the Natural law; and 3) It must promote human welfare; that is, it must promote the good of society (Fr. Dominic Prummer, Moral Theology).  These criteria, required for the validity of any human law, make the suppression of immemorial tradition all but impossible to legitimately effect.  The pope has no authority to bind an unjust law and therefore the Catholics of Milan were completely within their rights to refuse the order of Pope Nicholas II.  And we are, like them, within our rights to refuse any of liturgical innovations that overturn immemorial custom.[/i][/i]

 
Matthew,

Perhaps these foot notes from a 2010 letter to Culture Wars Magazine will help you understand why Traditio refers to the 1962 Missal as "Half Novus Ordo". The 1962 Missal published by the SSPX has been their own unauthorized (pre-1955 & 1962) hybrid version for decades and that is why it is indistinguishable to you and other SSPX faithful who grew up with it.  Do a search and compare a non- SSPX Missal and yours.

However, if a valid Pope changed it, who am I to judge?  I'm not above the Pope.

Beginning with Quattuor Abhinc Annos (1984) and Ecclesia Dei (1988) of John Paul II, and culminating with the recent motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм (2007) of Benedict XVI, in which permission is so graciously granted by the respective Holy Fathers for a Mass that no priest needs anyone’s permission, including the pope’s, to offer any time he so chooses, the authors of these docuмents specify that these permissions are to celebrate Mass using the 1962 Missal, and only the 1962 Missal. Considering that between those docuмents, and the letter to the bishops which accompanies the latest motu proprio, this requirement is specified no fewer than 15 times.

Fr. Morrison has been calling the 1962-Indult Mass the "half-Mass" for more than a decade.

He's a really unpleasant fellow, I might add.