Can Anyone Show Me One Or More Parts of The Ordinary Of The Novus Ordo Missal That Is Contrary To Catholicism ?

[JuniorCouncilor]

Stubborn, as best I understand your posts, my position is probably far closer to your own than to thinking that "validity and acceptability are the same."  I think the technical term that best matches with "acceptable" is "licit."

My post was calculated to show that it is clear that a Mass can be valid, yet not licit.

[Whitey]

Ah, those were the days    (this thread is old)

So,  3 1/2 years and a revised missal later, what say the fishes ?

Allow me to quote from Cranmer's Godly Order:

An accepted principle in regard to liturgical worship is that the doctrinal standpoint of a Christian body must necessarily be reflected in its worship. Liturgical rites should express what they contain. It is not necessary for the Catholic position to be expressly contradicted for a rite to become suspect; the suppression of prayers which had given liturgical expression to the doctrine behind the rite is more than sufficient to give cause for conern. This principle is embodied in the phrase legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi ("let the law of prayer fix the law of faith")-- in other words the liturgy of the Church is a sure guide to her teaching. This is usally presented in the abbreviated form of lex orandi, lex credendi, and can be translated freely as meaning that the manner in which the Church worships (lex orandi) must reflect what the Church believes (lex credendi)...
When this principle is applied to the Protestant services, it reveals how clearly the embody the true doctrinal position of the reformers. "As in the new communion service, so in the new ordination rite, it was not what was expressed but what was suppressed that gave expression to the whole (57).

And Leo XIII, on the Anglican orders, quoted in Davies:

They (The Anglican Reformers) knew only too well the intimate bond with unites faith and worship, lex credendi and lex supplicandi: and so, under the pretext of of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to bring it into accord with the errors of the Innovators. As a result, not only is there in the whole Ordinal no clear mention of sacrifice, of consecration, of priesthood, of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice, but, as We have already indicated, every trace of these and similar things remaining in such prayers of the Catholic rite as were not completely rejected, was purposely removed and obliterated (58)."

Concluding, if you haven't already:

... It is not the fact that conservative-minded clergy such as Gardiner could use it (Cranmer's mass) "as though it were the same as the ancient Mass" which is improtant: it is the fact that it could be interpreted for what it was intended to be (58).

Ok, so how would you summarize that in your own words ?

[Whitey]

Hopefully someone here has already mention Fr. Cekada's excellent multi-part video series Work of Human Hands.

I'll mention it!  Well, not the video series but the book.   

http://www.pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com/2010/06/advice-from-caterpillar.html

Thursday, June 17, 2010
ADVICE FROM A CATERPILLAR

“Not quite right, I’m afraid,” said Alice timidly: “some of the words have got altered.”

From Reader #3

Perhaps the best way to apprehend the crass carelessness of Work of Human Hands and the woeful thinness of Anthony Cekada’s learning is to examine closely a small sample of errors. The Reader’s random selection includes downright boneheaded howlers as well as mistakes that seem trivial at first blush but magnify themselves when considered against all the noisy, false claims of exacting scholarship. To err is indeed human, but the occurrence so many mistakes corroborates the Reader’s contention that the book is not serious.

Caution: THE FOLLOWING exercise IS not INTENDED for the grammatically faint of heart.

Let’s begin at the beginning, where (under the front matter “Other Abbreviations”) we find Tempus Pentecostis. Anthony Cekada prints the word as a Latin third declension genitive singular. However, in the Roman Missal and Breviary (and in real liturgical authors) the word is Pentecostes, a Greek genitive of the first declension. The blunder reveals a breathtaking ignorance of official Roman books and the Vulgate. The Reader wonders why the correct form could not stick in his head after so many years of saying Mass and reading the Office.

On the same page, we have another tell-tale boner. This time it’s not one of morphology but of usage. Against “Ember Days,” Anthony Cekada writes Quatuor Temporum (genitive plural) where he should have used the nominative plural Tempora, the correct Latin for a section header or an index entry (v.g., in the Missal and Breviary’s treatise De Anno et Ejus Partibus or in De Herdt’s index to his three-volume Sacræ Liturgiæ Praxis). The genitive Temporum is found in the Missal and Breviary, but that form commonly appears after the name of a day of the week (e.g., Feria IV Quatuor Temporum ‘on Ember Wednesday’). He really should have tried to stay awake in Latin class, or perhaps he should have read the Missal and Breviary with more attention.

It isn’t surprising if you’ve read the man, but Anthony Cekada’s ignorance of syntax and morphemes is so broad that it extends to English, too. In hazarding a literary translation of Psalm 42, on p. 204 he writes “Why art thou sad, o [sic] my soul? And why does thou disquiet me.” Every schoolboy knows that it should be dost. This isn’t a "printer’s error" since he produced the electronic text. This is Anthony Cekada’s bad ear for archaic English and his ignorance of morphemes. He has a similar mistake on p. 189, where his translation of the vesting prayer for the chasuble reads, “O Lord, who has said, ‘My yoke is sweet and My burden light,' grant that I may carry it as to merit Thy grace.” The archaic possessive adjective “Thy” would tell the literate man to use the archaic hast, the “Biblical” second person singular, since the prayer addresses the Lord directly (the Latin verb dixisti ‘you have said’ is second person singular). The third person singular has is an option neither in archaic nor in modern English.

Anthony Cekada is wrong from beginning to end. Bottom line: spare your pocketbook and your sensibilities. Take our advice and just say NO! when he asks you to buy his tattered wares.

Within the Octave

 

[Whitey]

Not to be nit-picky here, as I'm all for a critical analysis of that book, "Work of Human Hands," but could the above analysis by "Caterpillar" as posted by the Doc  be, for the most part, a case of one Sedevacantist opposing another? Sedes are known for their infighting, and this website (pistrina liturgica) looks Sede to me.

If you want to read such a book, get a copy of The Great Sacrilege by Fr James Wathen.

[Mithrandylan]

Ah, those were the days    (this thread is old)

So,  3 1/2 years and a revised missal later, what say the fishes ?

Allow me to quote from Cranmer's Godly Order:

An accepted principle in regard to liturgical worship is that the doctrinal standpoint of a Christian body must necessarily be reflected in its worship. Liturgical rites should express what they contain. It is not necessary for the Catholic position to be expressly contradicted for a rite to become suspect; the suppression of prayers which had given liturgical expression to the doctrine behind the rite is more than sufficient to give cause for conern. This principle is embodied in the phrase legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi ("let the law of prayer fix the law of faith")-- in other words the liturgy of the Church is a sure guide to her teaching. This is usally presented in the abbreviated form of lex orandi, lex credendi, and can be translated freely as meaning that the manner in which the Church worships (lex orandi) must reflect what the Church believes (lex credendi)...
When this principle is applied to the Protestant services, it reveals how clearly the embody the true doctrinal position of the reformers. "As in the new communion service, so in the new ordination rite, it was not what was expressed but what was suppressed that gave expression to the whole (57).

And Leo XIII, on the Anglican orders, quoted in Davies:

They (The Anglican Reformers) knew only too well the intimate bond with unites faith and worship, lex credendi and lex supplicandi: and so, under the pretext of of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to bring it into accord with the errors of the Innovators. As a result, not only is there in the whole Ordinal no clear mention of sacrifice, of consecration, of priesthood, of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice, but, as We have already indicated, every trace of these and similar things remaining in such prayers of the Catholic rite as were not completely rejected, was purposely removed and obliterated (58)."

Concluding, if you haven't already:

... It is not the fact that conservative-minded clergy such as Gardiner could use it (Cranmer's mass) "as though it were the same as the ancient Mass" which is improtant: it is the fact that it could be interpreted for what it was intended to be (58).

Ok, so how would you summarize that in your own words ?

The new mass effectively (both substantially and accidentally) suppresses the sacrifice in favor of a meal.  It also minimizes and suppresses the role of the priest to a mere representative of the people (as if the people are/can offer the sacrifice).  These suppressions are enough reason to believe and to clearly illustrate that the New Mass expresses a different faith, in keeping with the axiom lex orandi, lex cerendi.

[Whitey]

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The new mass effectively (both substantially and accidentally) suppresses the sacrifice in favor of a meal.  It also minimizes and suppresses the role of the priest to a mere representative of the people (as if the people are/can offer the sacrifice).  These suppressions are enough reason to believe and to clearly illustrate that the New Mass expresses a different faith, in keeping with the axiom lex orandi, lex cerendi.

Fair enough.

I'm still not convinced the NO isn't a Catholic Mass. Less fitting than the TLM ? I'd agree.

[Whitey]

Although an uncomfortable one, I think an argument can be made that the new liturgy is intrinsically un-Catholic by its lack of profession of several distinctively Catholic truths, such as those integral to the very substance of the Mass. It must be remembered that not all of the Protestant liturgies were condemned for containing explicit heresy; rather, it was for what they didn't say that merited such condemnation from the Church. As it applies to the new liturgy, below is just one example of what is lacking in the new liturgy: 

(It should be understood from the outset that the following is not meant to examine all the doctrinal criteria that the Church requires for a liturgy to be authentically Catholic; instead, it is meant to examine one particular and uniquely essential element. It is thus understood that is suffices for one such element to be lacking in order to compromise the Catholicity of such a rite. Ergo, this post addresses one particular issue. This is the same issue traditional Catholics have faced since the beginning, and regardless of how many subsequent re-translations are authorized, one of the most fundamental problems still remains. [NOTE: The premises alone are sufficient to prove the conclusions that follow. The footnotes that are attached to these conclusions are not intended to prove the conclusions of themselves; they merely support them.])

Major Premise 1: A Mass is a form of liturgical¹ prayer.²

Minor Premise 1: The rule of belief determines the rule of prayer.³
Conclusion 1: Hence, the rule of belief determines the liturgical prayer of a Mass.⁴

Major Premise 2: The rule of belief determines the liturgical prayer of a Mass.

Minor Premise 2: The Catholic Church's rule of belief has infallibly determined that the purpose of a Catholic Mass is to be a propitiation for sin.⁵
Conclusion 2: Hence, to be a Catholic Mass, a Mass must pray to be a propitiation for sin.^6a,b

Major Premise 3: To be a Catholic Mass, a Mass must pray to be a propitiation for sin.

Minor Premise 3: The Novus Ordo Missae does not pray to be a propitiation for sin.⁷
Conclusion 3: Therefore, the Novus Ordo Missae is not a Catholic Mass.

¹ "In obedience, therefore, to her Founder's behest, the Church prolongs the priestly mission of Jesus Christ mainly by means of the sacred liturgy. She does this in the first place at the altar, where constantly the sacrifice of the cross is represented and with a single difference in the manner of its offering, renewed" (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, n. 3).

² "The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. Is is the Sacrifice dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the Altar" (Pope St. Pius X).

³ "The entire liturgy . . . has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church" (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, n. 47). "[ I ]f one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, 'Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi' - let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer" (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, n. 48).

⁴ "[T]he sacred liturgy is intimately bound up with doctrinal propositions which the Church proposes to be perfectly true and certain, and must as a consequence conform to the decrees respecting Catholic faith issued by the supreme teaching authority of the Church with a view to safeguarding the integrity of the religion revealed by God" (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, no. 45).

⁵ "And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles" (Council of Trent, Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2).

^6a "The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein--to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the holy Catholic Church; and, may all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares, and decrees what follows to be preached to the faithful on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a true and singular sacrifice" (Council of Trent, Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio). "If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Canon III).

^6b "Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this unspotted host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present: as also for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them for salvation unto life everlasting. Amen" (Missal of St. Pius V, Offertory). "May the performance of my homage be pleasing to Thee, O holy Trinity: and grant that the Sacrifice which I, though unworthy, have offered up in the sight of Thy Majesty, may be acceptable to Thee, and through Thy mercy, be a propitiation for me, and for all those for whom I have offered it. Through Christ our Lord. Amen" (Missal of St. Pius V, The Final Blessing).

⁷ "Father, we celebrate the memory of Christ, your Son. We, your people and your ministers, recall his passion, his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into glory; and from the many gifts you have given us we offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation [...]" (EP I, 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal, English Translation, 2011). "In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit [...]" (EP II, 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal, English Translation, 2011). "Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice [...]" (EP III, 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal, English Translation, 2011). "Father, we now celebrate this memorial of our redemption. We recall Christ's death, his descent among the dead, his resurrection, and his ascension to your right hand; and, looking forward to his coming in glory, we offer you his body and blood, the acceptable sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world [...]" (EP IV, 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal, English Translation, 2011).


Some Common Objections


Objection 1: A Mass doesn't have to explicitly represent every dogma of the Church in order to be considered a Catholic Mass. If this were the case, then the use of the Apostle's Creed in place of the Nicaean Creed at Mass would make it a non-Catholic liturgy.

Reply: A Mass doesn't have to explicitly represent every dogma of the Church in order to be considered a Catholic Mass. However, because the Mass is a public prayer, it must pray for the purpose that prayer intends to achieve (in this case, the atonement of sin). This is why Minor Premise #2 states: "The Catholic Church's rule of belief is that the purpose of a Catholic Mass [bearing in mind that it is a liturgical prayer] is to be a propitiation for sin."


Objection 2: The Offertory is omitted on the Easter Vigil. If this teaching is necessary for a Mass to be considered Catholic, then the Mass offered on the Easter Vigil is not Catholic.

Reply: The omission of the Offertory prayer on the Easter Vigil is an exception made to the liturgical norm of law. To argue that it is therefore not necessary would be akin to arguing that the sacrifice of the Mass itself is not necessary, since the Mass of the Presanctified omits the consecration, and is thus not technically a Mass. To use an exception to the law to argue that the law is therefore not necessary defies the very purpose of the law. Furthermore, the dogma of the propitiatory sacrifice is clearly stated elsewhere in the Missal of St. Pius V, such as in the Last Blessing (cf. footnote 6b). The Last Blessing is present in the Easter Vigil liturgy. 


Objection 3: The Novus Ordo Missae does pray to be a propitiation for sin. The very words of institution say: "[...] For this is the chalice of My Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of Me."

Reply: The Protestants acknowledge that the Sacrifice of Calvary was propitiatory, but they deny that the Sacrifice of the Mass is, itself, likewise propitiatory. They argue that it is merely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which calls to mind the death of Christ, but which doesn’t have any propitiatory effect. The Council of Trent responded by declaring that the Mass, itself, is propitiatory and condemned the notion that the Mass, itself, is not propitiatory. The subsequent liturgical codifications (Missal of St. Pius V) reflected this teaching concerning the purpose of the prayer of the Mass by inserting this specific intention into the prayer of the Mass.


Objection 4: If explicit presentation of the propitiatory nature of the Mass is necessary to make a Mass Catholic, then all the Masses offered before this explicit statement was included in the Mass were not Catholic Masses.

Reply: What is bound after does not bind what was before. As Pius XII taught, "[T]he sacred liturgy is intimately bound up with doctrinal propositions which the Church proposes to be perfectly true and certain, and must as a consequence conform to the decrees respecting Catholic faith issued by the supreme teaching authority of the Church with a view to safeguarding the integrity of the religion revealed by God."
 

Objection 5: Pope Pius XII's teaching in Mediator Dei stating that "the sacred liturgy . . . must . . . conform to the decrees respecting Catholic faith issued by the supreme teaching authority of the Church . . ." means that Catholic liturgy must not contradict Catholic teaching, not that Catholic liturgy must reflect every doctrinal clarification issued by the Church's teaching authority.

Reply: Pope Pius XII's encyclical Mediator Dei is discussing Catholic liturgy. Liturgy that would contradict or reject the pronouncements of the magisterium would be heretical, and thus not Catholic liturgy. The Church is incapable of promulgating non-Catholic liturgy.
 

Objection 6: While in prison under Communist regime, Cardinal Mindszenty managed to obtain a bit of bread and wine and pronounced over the matter the words of Consecration so that he could receive Holy Communion. Though this was determined to be a valid sacrament, since he did not pray the prayers of the Mass, it must then have been an non-Catholic Mass.

Reply: There is a distinction between the sacrament and the liturgy in which it is enshrined and presented to the faithful. The question of whether a sacrament is valid (in this case, the Sacrifice of the Mass) is an altogether different question from whether the surrounding liturgy is an authentically Catholic liturgy.
 

Objection 7: The Council of Trent explicitly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation and condemned the false doctrine of consubstantiation. If liturgy must conform to subsequent magisterial decrees, where in the traditional Latin Mass is there an explicit denial, after the Consecration, that the Sacred Host does not contain the substantial form of bread, but contains only the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ?

Reply: See Objection 1 and Reply to Objection 1. The theological nuances related to the doctrine of the Real Presence, as important as they are, are nevertheless questions concerning metaphysical realities not specifically pertaining to the purpose of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Neither the affirmation nor denial of these metaphysical realities negates the recognition of the theological end the Sacrifice of the Mass expects to achieve: the atonement of sin. Christ could theoretically be consubstantially present in the Eucharist without interfering with the purpose of the prayer of the Mass: the atonement of sin. We know that Christ is not consubstantially present but that He is transubstantially present, and to say otherwise is heresy, but it is does not negate the purpose of the sacrificial offering.


Objection 8: This argument implies that a Mass previously considered Catholic may suddenly cease to be Catholic merely at the outbreak of a heresy and the subsequent issuing of dogmatic decrees. Thus the traditional Mass of today, if a heresy breaks out which denies some truth connected intimately with the Mass, may at some future time cease to be Catholic if it fails to update itself with the insertion of a new prayer corresponding to some hypothetical future conciliar teaching.  But what was once Catholic is so for all time.

Reply: What the Catholic Church teaches is specifically defined throughout the ages in response to challenges made to these teachings. The magisterium issues these subsequent decrees for the sake of guarding the integrity of the Faith. To reverse the course of this divine institution would result in the destruction of the Catholic Church and an abandonment of Her divine mission: to safeguard the Truth handed down from the Apostles against errors as they are presented in time. To argue that what was Catholic before is always Catholic is true, but, for any generation, what was taught by the Church in the past must be understood in light of what the Church has declared since then, lest the decrees of the past should be thought to be lacking in their profession of the Faith. Moreover, Her doctrinal decrees must conform to what She has subsequently declared. She can not abandon Her subsequent decrees in favor of returning to earlier decrees that have since been explicated by Her teaching authority. And, as has been already demonstrated, the liturgy must mirror this process for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the religion revealed by God. 


Objection 9: It takes time for the Church's liturgy to respond to doctrinal decrees issued by the Church's magisterium. If this argument were true, then all Masses offered after the issuance of the decree but before the revision of the liturgy would be non-Catholic.

Reply: Likewise, it takes time for the magisterium to issue doctrinal decrees in response to heresy. To say that heresy is true until defined as false denies the very objectivity of truth. Such an argument is akin to saying that Christ was not God until the Church authoritatively declared Him to be so. Once the Church has issued a doctrinal decree (in this case, concerning the very purpose the Mass itself), the liturgy as it existed before the issuance of the decree and before the corresponding liturgical revisions would not be non-Catholic because the action of the Church unfolds in time. Once the Church has authoritatively and promulgated a universal discipline that corresponds to the doctrinal decrees of the magisterium, however, the removal of such a liturgical adaptation would be non-Catholic for the same reason reasons specified in the Reply to Objection 8. We see the Church taking this course of action as it pertains to this very issue: the liturgy of St. Pius V was codified shortly after the close of the Council of Trent, which called for the Mass’s codification with the necessary doctrinal-liturgical concurrence.


Objection 10: Prayer does not always need to pray for what it intends to achieve by the prayer.

Reply: Because an individual person need not vocalize their intention in the prayer, this may the case as it concerns the private prayer of the individual, for God is aware of the private intentions of the heart. However, while private prayer does not require vocalization, a person is still said to pray for what that person intends to achieve by the prayer insofar as it is their intention to pray for it. But as it applies to the liturgy, which is public prayer of the Church, the liturgy "has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church." (See Footnote 2.) Hence, public prayer that intends to achieve a certain end must pray for what it intends to achieve, or else the prayer that intends to achieve that end is not public. But the propitiation of sin is a public intention of the Church, as the Council of Trent has declared. Hence, the prayer of a Catholic Mass must publicly pray for that intention, since that is a fundamental purpose of the prayer of the Mass itself.

Thanks for posting this. Lot's to take in here.

[Mithrandylan]

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The new mass effectively (both substantially and accidentally) suppresses the sacrifice in favor of a meal.  It also minimizes and suppresses the role of the priest to a mere representative of the people (as if the people are/can offer the sacrifice).  These suppressions are enough reason to believe and to clearly illustrate that the New Mass expresses a different faith, in keeping with the axiom lex orandi, lex cerendi.

Fair enough.

I'm still not convinced the NO isn't a Catholic Mass. Less fitting than the TLM ? I'd agree.

Well, define "Catholic" and then see if the NO meets that definition.

[JayneK]

I'm still not convinced the NO isn't a Catholic Mass. Less fitting than the TLM ? I'd agree.

This is my position too.  It is a Catholic Mass, but lacking the doctrinal clarity of the TLM.

[Mithrandylan]

I'm still not convinced the NO isn't a Catholic Mass. Less fitting than the TLM ? I'd agree.

This is my position too.  It is a Catholic Mass, but lacking the doctrinal clarity of the TLM.

I think that when people disagree on whether or not the new mass is Catholic, they're really disagreeing on the meaning of Catholic.