Louie Verrecchio criticizes the Novus Ordo Mass to accomodate the SSPX ideology
The Novus Ordo: Stones from Holy Mother?
From the blog Harvesting the Fruits of Vatican Council II
Let’s pick up our discussion of theNovusOrdowith one of the most important points raised in the previous post; namely, the suggestion often put forth by its defenders maintaining that the new Mass can neither be offensive to God, nor threaten to lead those who participate therein away from the Catholic faith, because:
The Church would never give such a rite to the faithful...
The Roman Pontiff, of course, plays an important role in safeguarding and facilitating that handing on of that which has been received, as do the bishops in union with him, but we’ll get to that in a moment.
The pontiffs since Pius XII did not protect the ecclesiology associated with the Holy Mass.
With the identifying marks described above being what they are, anything that is given to the children of the Church that deviates from this high standard of impeccability and purity quite simply cannot be attributed to her with respect to its origins.
The ecclesiology of the Mass was changed since the magisterium from 1949 onwards clearly rejected the magisterium of the past, on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The error was placed in Vatican Council II and now we have a case of the contemporary popes contradicting those from the past.
In the present case, the Supreme Pontiff has the solemn duty of passing along in all integrity that which has been handed down. The Mass is not his to craft according to his own desires, no matter how praiseworthy he believes them to be (e.g., placating heretics unto a false sense of unity)...
A defined dogma cannot be changed or discarded. The Nicene Creed cannot be changed. Yet this has been done. It is there before us.
How can you interpret Lumen Gentium 16 with an irrationality. Yet this has been done.
This is why so many good bishops acquiesced to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, in spite of its “time bombs” as Michael Davies called them; they simply could not imagine that the pope would ever so neglect his duty as to unleash the tragedy that followed.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Dietrich Von Hildebrand and other traditionalists allowed the Church to continue on a wrong theological way http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-michael.html
Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand were not aware of the irrational premise : Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara, John Rao, James Bogle, Joseph Shaw agree? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/michael-davis-romano-amerio-dietrich_11.html
Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand were not aware of the irrational premise which makes Vatican Council II a break with Tradition http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/michael-davis-romano-amerio-dietrich.html