The Rite Switch: why Roman rite Catholics become Eastern rite

National Catholic Register ^ | 1999

[ultima ratio]

"It reflects an arrogance and pride that does not comport with Catholicism or even Christianity."

Who are the arrogant and proud ones--those who dare to fabricate a new Mass and trash the ancient one that the Holy Spirit had guided through the centuries--or we who support the ancient Mass that had been guaranteed for all ages hence by Pius V?

[ultima ratio]

Of course traditionalists wish the suppression of the Novus Ordo. Look at the harm it's already done to the Catholic faith! Why should we want to keep it?

[sinkspur]

Of course traditionalists wish the suppression of the Novus Ordo. Look at the harm it's already done to the Catholic faith! Why should we want to keep it?

Here ya go, Pyro. Suppression of the Novus Ordo is the objective of the mouth breathers and Williamson-worshippers in the SSPX.

And, Knotts, UR is exhibit A of what I was speaking.

[ultima ratio]

First, you know--because I've told you countless times--I don't cotton to Williamson. So calling me a Williamson-worshiper is a deliberate misrepresentation. Second, you are right. Traditionalists seek the demise of the Novus Ordo, which is viewed as dangerous to the faith. The two Masses are incompatible--one reflecting a genuine Catholicism, the other an ersatz Catholicism designed to appeal to Protestants. One expresses the dogmas of the Church, the other deliberately undermines these in order to protestantize the faithful.

The people who introduced the Novus Ordo understood this very well. This is why they themselves sought to destroy the ancient Mass--knowing full well the new liturgy violates the proscriptions laid down by Trent. Why do you suppose the conciliar Church had its knives out for the Econe in the first place? Do you think they hated this traditional seminary because it was unorthodox or immoral? To the contrary--it was for the very opposite reason--precisely because it was traditionally moral and orthodox--and supported the ancient Mass. It was Lefebvre's very orthodoxy that was despised--and he alone of all the bishops of the Church drew the ire of Rome, beginning with the reign of Paul VI, then continuing through that of JPII, even while many other openly apostate and disobedient prelates were not only tolerated, but were actually promoted by Rome, some of them out-and-out heretics.

So yes, one or the other Mass must disappear--because each expresses a different religion. But since the ancient Mass was the one that was handed-down from the apostles and was the one guided by the Lord over the millenia, whereas the new Mass was a concoction invented by a committee of liberal humanists a scant thirty+ years ago, and since the ancient Mass had been blessed through the ages by fruits of the Holy Spirit whereas the new Mass has produced nothing but scandals and loss of faith, there can be no doubt which one ought to survive and which one ought to perish.

[sinkspur]

So yes, one or the other Mass must disappear--

That's not true, but your obstinacy reflects the disingenuousness of the SSPX.

You've been offered an apostolic administration, but Fellay and Williamson will have none of it.

Here's some news: ALL of the Cardinals promoted by JPII are Novus Ordo bishops. Every single one of them.

You'd better do any "deal" you're going to do with JPII. His successor is likely to tell the SSPX to take a hike.

[B Knotts]

Some traditionalists wish it. Others do not. I do not think it is fair to blame all that has gone wrong in the post-concilar Church on the new Mass. The decline had started even before Vatican II, actually, AFAIK.

On the other hand, it is true, IMO, that practically all of the present problems can be traced to modernism, which, as you know, Pope St. Pius X warned about even in 1907.

I'm no expert on Church history, but IMHO, and from what I have read on the matter, it could be fairly said that the Council, the new Mass, the air of reform to the point of excess, and the "spirit of Vatican II" merely gave modernism the room to breath that it subsequently used to inflict the harm on the Church that we now see.

[B Knotts]

You'd better do any "deal" you're going to do with JPII. His successor is likely to tell the SSPX to take a hike.

I'd add this qualifier: If Cardinal Hoyos is the next Pope, he will try to regularize SSPX to the extent he can.

And, yes, they should have accepted the apostolic administration. That's the best they can realistically hope for, unless they intend to remain in an irregular status. It would have been beneficial to the people who currently attend their Masses, to the people who are denied an indult Mass (or for whom it is extremely inconvenient), and to the Church as a whole.

[ultima ratio]

The decline did not begin until the close of Vatican II. Just before the Council the Church was actually at its zenith in terms of numbers of vocations, Mass attendance, conversions, baptisms, etc. It was at the apex of its political and cultural influence--even one of its bishops, Bishop Sheen, was as popular on national t.v. as Milton Berle. The decline began precipitously within ten years after the Council's close, with the incredible--and brutal--revolution that followed. Everything abruptly changed--liturgy, devotions, the Church calendar, sacramental rites, theology, seminary training, etc. With the introduction of the Novus Ordo, Mass attendance of all Catholics dropped abruptly from 80%+ to around 25%. It now hovers at around 17%. Belief in key dogmas also dropped precipitously. Belief in the Real Presence plunged. Now only 25% of all Catholics believe in this essential dogma. So too with belief in the Resurrection. Here is how Bishop Fellay put it recently in an interview:

"The cause [for decline of faith] is within the Church, but when someone tells them that, they cry out: No, if something isn’t right, it must be the world’s fault.
But allow me a little analogy, that of the chicken coop. It’s well known that an open henhouse allows the fox to enter and ravage the place. They say, It’s the fox’s fault. And I dare say, Who left the door open? The fox does its job. It’s the same with the world, it does it’s job trying to destroy the Church and corrupt Christians. To say that it’s the world’s fault that things are not going well is the same as saying it’s the fox’s fault. I’m sorry, but a mea culpa is owed by the one who was in charge of the door. Because this time it is not a matter of negligence, but of choice. At the Council there was an opening to the world; they not only opened the door, they took it off its hinges. At the time, there was talk of opening windows. To let in a little fresh air, the Pope said. But in fact it was a whirlwind that entered. Now there’s a disaster and it’s the world that is to blame. I’m sorry, but the door needs to be put back, and quickly."

[ultima ratio]

"Here's some news: ALL of the Cardinals promoted by JPII are Novus Ordo bishops. Every single one of them."

You think I don't know this? Here's more news--not one of them is a traditional Catholic. That should alarm anybody who cares about the Church. Right now these men are mediocrities at best. Many are disasters. Some are out and out heretics. That tells me this: that the Church is imploding precisely because it is being badly led. But no one can strong-arm the Holy Spirit, not even the Pope. No pontiff can force the flowers to bloom. Right now nothing is flourishing--for a good reason.

[ultima ratio]

"You'd better do any "deal" you're going to do with JPII. His successor is likely to tell the SSPX to take a hike."

What worse can another pope do? This one has charged the SSPX with schism and its leaders with excommunication--falsely. And it is precisely because the SSPX stands on solid ground morally that they remain invulnerable to subsequent attacks. It is Rome that needs to repent, not the Society which has kept the faith.

As for the current status of SSPX--how would an apostolic administration be better than their situation right now? Right now the Pope himself has marginalized them, casting them from himself unjustly--which has freed them to expand and oppose his reign of novelty. It has also allowed them to protect the faith in its purity--as it was practiced and believed before the modernists took over.

[gbcdoj]

What worse can another pope do?

Excommunicate every member of the Society ferendae sententiae.

It is Rome that needs to repent, not the Society which has kept the faith.

So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

As for the current status of SSPX--how would an apostolic administration be better than their situation right now?

They'd be part of the Church.

Right now the Pope himself has marginalized them, casting them from himself unjustly--which has freed them to expand and oppose his reign of novelty.

The Society has no legitimate authority to "expand".

Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose All Jurisdiction

15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone. (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)

It has also allowed them to protect the faith in its purity--as it was practiced and believed before the modernists took over.

Like this?

But if, as happens at times, some persons or groups are permitted to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has allowed it in express terms and in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, the conditions and circumstances being very plainly determined. (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis)

The case of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X presents itself differently from the case of the Diocese of Campos. It seems to me that the case of the Diocese of Campos is simpler, more classical, because what we have here is the majority of the diocesan priests and faithful, on the advice of their former bishop, designating his successor and asking Catholic bishops to consecrate him. This is how the succession of bishops came about in the early centuries of the Church, in union with Rome, as we are too in union with Catholic Rome and not Modernist Rome ...

In order for this distinction to be quite clear, it would be altogether preferable for the ceremony to take place at Campos, at least outside the diocese. It is the clergy and the Catholic people of Campos who are taking to themselves a Successor of the Apostles, a Roman Catholic bishop such as they can no longer obtain through Modernist Rome.

That is my opinion. I think it rests upon fundamental principles of Church Law and upon Tradition. (Msgr. Lefebvre, Letter to Bishop de Castro Meyer)

[gbcdoj]

The decline did not begin until the close of Vatican II.

Modernism and Liberalism was already seeping into the Church. Where do you suppose the "Rhine" bishops (appointed by Pius XII) came from at Vatican II?

Now only 25% of all Catholics believe in this essential dogma.

It was 33%, and that survey included apostates who self-identify as Catholics.

[gbcdoj]

Why do you suppose the conciliar Church had its knives out for the Econe in the first place? Do you think they hated this traditional seminary because it was unorthodox or immoral?

Econe and the SSPX rejected Vatican II, as Lefebvre made clear in his Declaration. Abbe de Nantes relates that the Econe library had no books dated later than 1962.

During their stay at Ecône, Brothers Bruno and Joseph noticed that the seminary did not practise the intelligent traditionalism which the Abbé de Nantes had been seeking to promote for over twenty years. When they visited the seminary, one of the professors, Dom Guillou, showed them the library and explained to them that it did not contain a single work published after 1962! At Ecône, therefore, they ignored the acts of Vatican II so that they might not have to criticise them… Clearly, it was not by proudly ignoring the conciliar Reform that one could form priests… of the Counter-Reformation! (de Nantes, For the Church v. 3 c. 9)

The Seminary was supressed because of Lefebvre's refusal to retract the Declaration.

Cardinal Garrone: As you were informed during the last meeting, your position as formulated in the manifesto [the declaration by Mgr Lefebvre of 21 November 1974 which we have quoted above], is unacceptable. A text like your manifesto is harmful to the souls of the young men being prepared for the priesthood. I do not say that one cannot do good with the Mass of Pius V; but if you join to it a kind of radical doubt regarding the authority of the Church, you are not preparing priests of the type wanted by the Church. You insinuate doubts into the very conscience of these young men which make them believe that it is for them to judge. It is they who shall decide what the Church thinks. Withdraw this text. It is unacceptable.

[Conservative til I die]

I'm lucky enough to live in a neighborhod with an inordinate number of churches, and one where (not so much anymore) there was a heavy Eastern European immigrant presence, so I actually live less than a mile from an Eastern Catholic Church building. Funny enough is that there's an Orthodox Church right across the street from it. The EC building is round-shaped. I'd definitely like to visit it.

[NYer]

The EC building is round-shaped. I'd definitely like to visit it.

And ... you should! But, before you go, do some research on that particular rite, so you will know what to expect. Also, in all fairness, once you do attend an Eastern liturgy, you should return 2 more times. As I pointed out to one of the other posters to this thread, the first visit is usually disorienting, the 2nd one brings some sense of familiarity and, by the 3rd visit, you can now begin to fully absorb the liturgy.

I asked to borrow their missalette after attending the liturgy and promised to return it. That gave me more time to read through the prayers, the organization of the liturgy and gain an even deeper appreciation of how they celebrate the Divine Liturgy.

Please let us know how it goes!

[Thorin]

>>>>>>

Here ya go, Pyro. Suppression of the Novus Ordo is the objective of the mouth breathers and Williamson-worshippers in the SSPX.<<<<<

This comment is lacking in Christian charity, to say the least. But it's typical of neoconservatism--being polite to the left, and saving the real invective for those on the right. I have never seen you use this sort of langauge for the liberals who have done so much damage to the Church in this country.

In case you were wondering, I belong to a parish that uses the the Novus Ordo Mass and have no doubts of the legitimacy of Pope John Paul II, whom I think has generally been a good pope. But there is no doubt that the implementation of Vatican II has been very harmful and even ruinous of the Faith in many places, as even Cardinal Ratzinger has said.