Expert: Fr. Michael - 10/7/2010

Question
QUESTION: Friar,

I am a laymember of the Archdiocese of Houston-Galveston. My question is what do you consider 'New Order' to be? Does it have any relation to the 'Old Catholics' or Catholics who refute papal authority?

ANSWER: The term "New Order" refers to the unCatholic Modernism that was introduced in the last half century into doctrine, morality, and worship, most particularly following the Vatican II pastoral council (1962-1965).  Much as some Newchurchers are desperate to make it seem like Catholicism, its essence clearly is not, although some of the external attributes have been retained so that the changes do not scare the congregations.

Its hallmark is the Novus Ordo service and ordinal, introduced in 1969 and fabricated from Protestant and other unCatholic models.  Its own documents indicate that it is no longer a Catholic Mass, but an "assembly of the people presided over by a presbyter."  Leading doctrinal cardinals objected to the pope at the time, Paul VI, that the Novus Ordo service was invalid, and it was recalled for a year, but then reissued in essentially the same form.

The actual Catholic Faith, which used to be called just that, now has to be distinguised from the New Order by calling itself traditional Catholic.  Traditional Catholics necessarily accept the office of the papacy as defined at Vatican I (1870).

Old Catholicism is a different matter.  It is in the same situation as Eastern Orthodoxy, formally schismatic, though with valid Sacraments.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: *Father, (I accidentally put Friar in my haste of typing last time)

I understand your concerns and have researched this personally over the last day. My greatest concern is that those claiming to be traditionalist are attacking the papacy. Even though Vatican II may have presented some deviations from traditional Catholic practices, I do not think it is right to attack the Pope.

I borrowed a book from my Deacon summarizing Vatican II. These are the following things that I concluded from it:

- Death/election of a new pope
- elaborate on the role of the bishop
- renew the faith
- unity between Christians
- reaching out to the contemporary world

The following documents implemented: Sacrosanctum Concilium, Unitatis Redintegratio, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humanae, Gaudium et Spes, Ad Gentes, Presbyterorum Ordinis, Christus Dominus, Perfectae Caritatis, Optatam Totius, Gravissimum Educationis, Apostolicam Actuositatem, Nostra Aetate, and Dei Verbum. (A mouthful to say the least.)

I am sure you do not reject all of these doctrines as invalid; would you be able to tell me which ones you and other traditionalists reject so I can better understand why and be able to give my question on why you reject certain principals. Also I need not an elaborate answer, just a synopsis of the doctrines you find objectionable so I can understand clearly.

Also, are you and your parish in Communion with Rome? When researching I have found that some traditionalists have broke off to form their own societies in a schism.  

Answer
You are confusing attacking the pope with attacking the papacy.  The doctrine of the Church is that the pope may be infallible in certain well-limited areas, he is not impeccable (sinless), often quite the contrary.  The Fathers and Doctors of the Church teach that we have the obligation to criticize and try to reform any hierarch, including the pope, if he strays from the Faith or Tradition.  If he does so, the damage to the Church is great, as it has been for the last forty years.  Scripture shows us the way.  When Peter erred, Paul chastised him publicly, as a result of which Peter recanted of his error (Galatians 2:11).

The post-Conciliar popes have done great damage to the Church.  They have destroyed the Mass, substituted false doctrine, and introduced the gravest immoralities.  The current pope is, there is no longer any real doubt, the most gravely sinful pope since Alexander VI.  His signature is all over documents that aided and abetted child rapists among the New Order clergy.  Such people, Our Lord taught, were worthy of death (Matthew 8:16).

Traditional Catholics are certainly not in schism.  They follow the same Catholic Faith as it has been for 2000 years.  To the contrary, it is those who would presume to teach new doctrines that defy the true Church.  It doesn't matter that such people are often found in high positions among the clergy.  Our Lord vehemently attacked the leaders of the Church of His time for being corrupt:  "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men  beautiful but within are full of dead men's bones and of all filthiness.  So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just:  but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity" (Matthew 23:27-28).

That should give you enough to ponder about for quite some time.  This is not, however, the place for a debate.  All I can do is get you started on your climb to ferreting out true Catholicism, which is to be found, as the Church teaches, in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Read the Fathers of the Church for their wisdom and true Catholicism.  I particularly recommend St. Augustine for the period of the Arian heresy, to which St. Jerome tells us four out of five bishops, and perhaps two of the popes, succumbed.  Read the history of the Church.  Study true Catholic doctrine.  Stay away from the tainted Vatican II material and stick with the tried and true of 2000 years.

After all, if the essence of the Faith does not change, why now go back to the seminal material instead of latter-day pastiche.  As St. Paul correctly correctly predicted:  "For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;  And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:3-4).