Does Francis's Suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass qualify him as Heretic? Is Francis a Practical Arian?
Newman’s sense was that the common devotion to Christ, though nominally orthodox, was de facto Arian or worse:
This leads them to mistake the Catholic devotion to Mary for idolatry... Protestant practical Arianism. - Robert Gotcher [https://www.lightondarkwater.com/2015/08/52-authors-week-31-newman.html]Yet it is not wonderful, considering how Socinians, Sabellians, Nestorians, and the like, abound in these days, without their even knowing it themselves, if those who never rise higher in their notions of our Lord's Divinity, than to consider Him a man singularly inhabited by a Divine Presence, that is, a Catholic Saint,—if such men should mistake the honour paid by the Church to the human Mother for that very honour which, and which alone, is worthy of her Eternal Son. (Ch. 4, Section II.9)
[I]t must be asked, whether the character of much of the Protestant devotion towards our Lord has been that of adoration at all; and not rather such as we pay to an excellent human being, that is, no higher devotion than that which Catholics pay to St. Mary, differing from it, however, in often being familiar, rude, and earthly. Carnal minds will ever create a carnal worship for themselves; and to forbid them the service of the Saints will have no tendency to teach them the worship of God. (Ch. 11, Section II.3)
Today, LifeSiteNews asked "Why does suppression of the traditional Latin Mass and rites qualify as 'heterodox'?" They seemed to answered "yes' by quoting the theologian and liturgist Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
“Let us be absolutely clear about this: to attack the traditional Latin Mass (or any of the traditional liturgical rites) is to attack the Providence of God the Father; to reject the work of Christ, the King and Lord of history; to blaspheme the fruitfulness of the Holy Ghost in the Church’s life of prayer. It is contrary to the practice of every age of the Church, of every saint, council, and pope prior to the 20th century. It contradicts several key virtues of the Christian life, most notably religion, gratitude, and humility. It implies the rejection of the dogmatic confession of faith contained in the traditional Latin lex orandi in its organic unfolding over at least 1,600 years, which is contrary to the theological virtue of faith … ” [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/sitting-on-the-fence-is-not-an-option-on-our-duty-to-resist-suppression-of-the-traditional-rites/]
Rorate Caeli explains why the Francis attempt to suppress the Traditional Latin Mass reflects the heresies of the Protestants:
The papal condemnation accuses these traditionalists of being divisive and of being ideologically opposed to the second Vatican Council. However that Council (of which most of the young devotees know little, having been born long after its closure in 1965!) was pastoral, not definitively doctrinal let alone ideological. The vast majority of the bishops at the Council, including Marcel Lefebvre, signed most of its decrees.
It was largely what came afterwards, with the explosive and revolutionary ‘implementation’ of the Council. The vast majority of bishops had no say (let alone anyone else) in the promulgation of the reformed Mass. However, at the Synod of Bishops in 1967 it is on record that only a minority of bishops present approved the New Order of Mass. Cardinal Heenan prophesied it would result in dwindling numbers. In spite of this, the Consilium pushed it through, calling on all to be a obedient to the “spirit of Vatican II.” Cardinal Ottaviani, then head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, complained that the new Mass marked a “striking departure” from the solemnly defined Catholic Eucharistic theology of the Council of Trent. In many ways it can be demonstrated that the Consilium’s new Mass was in no way what was envisaged by the Fathers at Vatican II...
... Archbishop Bugnini (architect of the New Rite) admits in his apologia (his full papers have yet to be divulged) that ‘negative theology’ was incompatible with the sensibilities of modern man. The concepts that were deleted included the very notion of the soul! The use of this word disappears in the New Mass! Other deletions include miracles, fasting, mortification, error, evils, enemies, the wrath of God and Hell. He is on record as saying that the New Rite should avoid anything that could be a stumbling block for Protestants. Jean Guitton, a personal friend of Pope Paul VI, confirms this, admitting that the revolutionary changes were set in place to more perfectly coincide with the Calvinist Eucharist. [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/12/what-is-behind-papal-strangulation-of.html]
If the Francis suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass qualify him as heretic, then what type of heretic is he?
Obviously, he wants a Protestant type of Mass, but ultimately what is a Protestant Mass?
A hint came to me from a friend of C.S. Lewis, Christopher Derrick, when he said that Lewis claimed "Catholicism... press[ed] the incarnation... too far." I suspect that Lewis never became a Catholic because he was like most Protestants a practical Arian.
Robert Gotcher explains that Protestant anti-Mary doctrines incline them towards "practical Arianism":
The usual response to a Protestant objection to our veneration of Mary is to say we don’t “worship” her, but give her honor not unlike we give special people honor and we don’t pray to her, but ask her to pray for us. All well and good, but that doesn’t get to the heart of the problem. In fact, Catholics do treat Mary as a kind of divinity.
Newman helped me see why this is the case and why it is not really a problem. Specifically, the honors paid Mary are paid to a creature just as the Arians considered Christ a creature, although far above us. Mary is above us because she has experienced transforming power of the resurrection of the body known as theosis or divinization. She participates in the divine nature in a way that we only will at the second coming, but even so to a greater degree.
And as containing all created perfection, she has all those attributes, which, as was noticed above, the Arians and other heretics applied to our Lord, and which the Church denied of Him as infinitely below His Supreme Majesty….Christ is the First-born by nature; the Virgin in a less sublime order, viz. that of adoption. Again, if omnipotence is ascribed to her, it is a participated omnipotence (as she and all Saints have a participated sonship, divinity, glory, holiness, and worship). (Ch. 11, Section II.10)
Newman asserted that Arius had opened up for the Church a “place” in her thinking for an exalted creature like that which Arius ascribed to Christ. That place was filled in her speculation and piety by the Blessed Virgin Mary.
And thus the controversy opened a question which it did not settle. It discovered a new sphere, if we may so speak, in the realms of light, to which the Church had not yet assigned its inhabitant..…Thus there was "a wonder in heaven:" a throne was seen, far above all other created powers, mediatorial, intercessory; a title archetypal; {144} a crown bright as the morning star; a glory issuing from the Eternal Throne; robes pure as the heavens; and a sceptre over all; and who was the predestined heir of that Majesty? Since it was not high enough for the Highest, who was that Wisdom, and what was her name, "the Mother of fair love, and fear, and holy hope," "exalted like a palm-tree in Engaddi, and a rose-plant in Jericho," "created from the beginning before the world" in God's everlasting counsels, and "in Jerusalem her power"? The vision is found in the Apocalypse, a Woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. The votaries of Mary do not exceed the true faith, unless the blasphemers of her Son came up to it. The Church of Rome is not idolatrous, unless Arianism is orthodoxy. (Chapter 4)
Newman’s sense was that the common devotion to Christ, though nominally orthodox, was de facto Arian or worse:
Yet it is not wonderful, considering how Socinians, Sabellians, Nestorians, and the like, abound in these days, without their even knowing it themselves, if those who never rise higher in their notions of our Lord's Divinity, than to consider Him a man singularly inhabited by a Divine Presence, that is, a Catholic Saint,—if such men should mistake the honour paid by the Church to the human Mother for that very honour which, and which alone, is worthy of her Eternal Son. (Ch. 4, Section II.9)
[I]t must be asked, whether the character of much of the Protestant devotion towards our Lord has been that of adoration at all; and not rather such as we pay to an excellent human being, that is, no higher devotion than that which Catholics pay to St. Mary, differing from it, however, in often being familiar, rude, and earthly. Carnal minds will ever create a carnal worship for themselves; and to forbid them the service of the Saints will have no tendency to teach them the worship of God. (Ch. 11, Section II.3)
This leads them to mistake the Catholic devotion to Mary for idolatry... Protestant practical Arianism. [https://www.lightondarkwater.com/2015/08/52-authors-week-31-newman.html]