I was raised Catholic, and am still one nominally, but have in recent years considered converting to Orthodoxy.

I still love Latin Christianity though, and hate seeing what has become of the RCC... I really want to see the Holy See retake its place at the head of Europe with the Latin language flourishing and Europe Catholic once more. Please everyone tell me your thoughts on the following.

--------------------


A Triumph for Traditionalists by Patrick Buchanan

Elevated to the papacy at 78, Benedict XVI will take no action greater in significance for the Catholic Church than his motu proprio declaring that the Latin Mass must be said in every diocese — on the request of the faithful. Dissenting bishops must comply.

"What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us, too," said the Holy Father in his apostolic letter, as he authorized the universal use of the sole official version of the mass allowed in the four centuries between the Council of Trent and Vatican II.

To which many Catholics will respond: "Alleluia! Alleluia!"

And so the pope has come full circle. At Vatican II, the future Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Holy Office for the Defense of the Faith under John Paul II, went about in coat and tie and was seen as a radical reformer and modernist theologian in the mold of his friend Hans Kung.

Now, Kung is silent, Ratzinger is pope, and the Latin Mass, which had fallen into disuse with the introduction of the new rite in 1970, is back.

Why? Because the Holy Father knows the solemnity, mystery and beauty of the Latin Mass hold magnetic appeal, not only for the older faithful but the searching young. And he acted to advance a reconciliation with traditionalists out of communion with the Holy See, including the 600,000 followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, excommunicated in 1988, who belong to his Society of Saint Pius X.

The current head of SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has welcomed papal restoration of the Latin Mass. But he has called it a first step toward addressing all doctrinal disputes dating to Vatican II. Among these are the issues of ecuмenism and religious liberty. If the true church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, then not all churches are equal.

Ever since Pope John Paul II issued his 1988 indult, which authorized, but did not require, bishops to allow the Latin Mass, the number of Catholics requesting the Tridentine rite — and the number attending — has steadily grown. Indeed, it was the stubborn resistance of some bishops to allow the Latin Mass to be said that brought a rising chorus of pleas to Rome from the faithful for the pope to overrule a recalcitrant hierarchy and order them to permit the old mass.

And there are other reasons Benedict XVI acted.

The introduction of the new mass has been attended by a raft of liturgical innovations by freelancing priests that are transparently heretical.

And the years since Vatican II and the introduction of the new mass have been marked by a crisis of faith in Europe and the United States.
Churches have closed. Faithful have fallen away, or converted to other faiths. Congregations have dwindled. Convents have emptied out. Vocations are a fraction of what they once were. Belief in the creedal truths of Catholicism is not what it was in the years before Vatican II — the halcyon days of the great pope and future St. Pius XII.

One cannot know the effect of Pope Benedict's decision. But the ferocity with which it was fought suggests some bishops are aware of the power of the old Latin Mass and the appeal of its mystery and solemnity to the young.

Pope Benedict, raised Catholic in nαzι Germany, once a reformer, but shaken by the events of 1968 and the social, cultural and moral revolution that followed, seems to have concluded that the Catholic Church's apertura a sinistra, its opening to the left, has run its course theologically, liturgically and morally, and failed. Restored tradition can do no harm, and may offer hope for the revival of a faith that is in its deepest crisis since the Reformation.

Indeed, the term "Tridentine Mass" is derived from the Latin name, Tirdentum, of the city in which it was declared the official mass of Roman Catholicism. And the Council of Trent was the first major step in the Counter-Reformation.

Yet the Holy Father could not make everyone happy.

Liberal European bishops were said to have fought restoration of the Latin Mass. And, according to The New York Times, Abe Foxman, resident theologian at the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, is about to anathematize the whole lot of us. Declared Abe, speaking ex cathedra for ADL:

"We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jєωιѕн language from the Good Friday Mass, that it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jєωs to be converted."

What is Abe talking about?

Does he not know that Catholics are required to pray for the conversion of all peoples to Catholicism and Christ? Who duped Abe into thinking this requirement was suspended by Vatican II?

Indeed, if one believes, as devout Catholics do, that Christ and his Church hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, it would be anti-Semitic not to pray for the conversation of the Jєωs. Even Abe.

A Triumph for Traditionalists by Pat Buchanan on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

-----------------------------

Could the Latin Mass save Western Civilization?
By Charles A. Coulombe

Back during the Roaring ‘20s, a then-contemporary witticism had it that four institutions would prevent the takeover of Europe by Communism: the German General Staff, the British House of Lords, the Academie Française, and the Holy See. Eighty years have brought many changes, to be sure. On the one hand, Communism is as unlikely to remerge in Europe as Fascism or nαzιsm. But on the other, the four mentioned institutions have also undergone alteration. The German General Staff was corrupted by Hitler, and destroyed by the allies; the House of Lords has suffered the same fate (albeit in reverse order) at the hands of the late Tony Blair. The cultural supremacy of English has diminished the relevance and importance of the Academie severely: as one French friend told me, “it would not be so terrible for the language of Moliere to be eclipsed by that of Shakespeare; but by that of Rod McKuen?” A horrible fate for us all, to be sure.

Moreover, if Communism has departed for the happy hunting ground of evil philosophies, the civilization of the West has acquired other enemies, unthinkable in the Flapper age. Islam is the obvious external threat—not merely in terms of terrorism and the like, but by a seemingly inexorable birth-rate within the Mother Continent herself. This latter development is matched by a corresponding fall in the fertility of the native population, itself bound up with a sickness-of-self on the part of that same population. To a great degree, this is the result of a second, internal enemy: a secularism that hates all that Europe, North America, and Australasia once were, and that would replace it with—well, that’s just it. It is a state of mind that cannot build; it can only destroy. Worse, it is the dominant mindset among those of the Western elites who belong to that age-group called the “Baby Boomers” in America , and the “Generation of ‘68” in Europe. Despite the rapid onset of old age, they cling to the rebelliousness of their youth as though it were a mystic talisman, protecting them from Father Time. All that made the West strong, in culture, governance, politics, and most assuredly in religion, is intolerable to them. But if the identities of the nations they manage are destroyed from above and within, how can those countries possibly survive in the long run?

The one remaining member of the quartet earlier mentioned is the Holy See. But it too is not what it was when Pius XI occupied St. Peter’s Throne. The horrors of World War II damaged the self-confidence in the Catholic ethos of the generation of clerics who lived through them. This would play a big part in the events of Vatican II and its aftermath. However one wishes to view those occurrences, the fact remains that by 1970, the Church appeared to be in an acute state of what Paul VI called “auto-demolition.” Although the Holy See under John Paul II contributed heavily to the fall of the Soviet Union , and its role in the diplomatic world expanded, the Church’s ability to counter the self-destructive tendencies in Western Culture became severely limited. Supposedly Catholic legislators throughout the West (even including such clerics as Congressman Robert Drinan, S.J.) joined gleefully in wrecking the moral and political heritage of centuries. Bishops themselves often quietly acquiesced in this, refusing to discipline such members of their flock as, say, Teddy Kennedy, for their anti-Catholic voting patterns. This was, however, emblematic of said prelates’ attempts to purge the Church of every vestige of the Catholic past.

Nowhere were these attempts more obvious than with the liturgy, the center of the Catholic religion. Most particularly, the classical form of the Catholic Mass and various other Sacraments was virtually banished from almost every nook of Christendom. With it went much of the distinctive Catholic identity—so much a part of the very foundation of Western culture. As the Harvard historian Christopher Dawson famously remarked, culture flows from “cult,” or worship; when forces internal or external root out the forms or content of religious practice in a civilization, they have essentially cut out its heart—the brain will follow.

After some 36 years of liturgical controversy, Pope Benedict XVI, on Saturday, July 7, 2007, in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм, has liberated the ancient Roman liturgy, which, after September 14 of this year, may be celebrated by any priest anywhere in the Catholic world. This action was angrily attacked by a number of bishops and other liberal Catholics in the weeks leading up to its promulgation.

Now it may be objected at this point that this occurrence, while doubtless of interest to Catholics, would have little interest to those outside of their religion. But in fact, it has attracted angry denunciations by such as the ADL’s Abraham Foxman (admittedly, Mr. Foxman has been described by his co-religionist, comedian and ordained rabbi Jackie Mason as “more afraid of a real job than of anti-Semitism”). Catholics might be tempted to angrily respond that Foxman’s statements upon an internal Church affair are as impudent as Gentiles attacking elements of the Jєωιѕн liturgy that they might find offensive (such as Yom Kippur’s Kol Nidre prayer) would most certainly be. But such Catholics would be wrong.

The truth is that the Catholic Church is a bellwether for the health of Western Civilization in general—a sort of canary chanting in the coal mine of culture. On the one hand, events within the Church cast their shadow on the rest of the Christian ecclesial bodies. This author has ventured, for example, into formerly beautiful Anglican and Lutheran churches, only to find them sacked by their clergy in similar manner to the depredations suffered by Catholic parishes in the past four decades. Upon enquiring about the reason for such artistic purging, he has often been told—“oh, because of Vatican II!” While he understands that this a misreading of the Council common in Catholic circles, he has never been able to understand how it could have any relevance to other denominations.

But there are wider implications as well. When, in 1971, news came out that the traditional Latin Mass was to be scrapped, a primarily non-Catholic group of English artists and writers protested to Paul VI:

If some senseless decree were to order the total or partial destruction of basilicas or cathedrals, then obviously it would be the educated—whatever their personal beliefs—who would rise up in horror to oppose such a possibility.

Now the fact is that basilicas and cathedrals were built so as to celebrate a rite which, until a few months ago, constituted a living tradition. We are referring to the Roman Catholic Mass. Yet, according to the latest information in Rome , there is a plan to obliterate that Mass by the end of the current year.

One of the axioms of contemporary publicity, religious as well as secular, is that modern man in general, and intellectuals in particular, have become intolerant of all forms of tradition and are anxious to suppress them and put something else in their place.

But, like many other affirmations of our publicity machines, this axiom is false. Today, as in times gone by, educated people are in the vanguard where recognition of the value of tradition is concerned, and are the first to raise the alarm when it is threatened.

We are not at this moment considering the religious or spiritual experience of millions of individuals. The rite in question, in its magnificent Latin text, has also inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts—not only mystical works, but works by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries and epochs. Thus, it belongs to universal culture as well as to churchmen and formal Christians.

In the materialistic and technocratic civilisation that is increasingly threatening the life of mind and spirit in its original
creative expression—the word—it seems particularly inhuman to deprive man of word-forms in one of their most grandiose manifestations.

The signatories of this appeal, which is entirely ecuмenical and nonpolitical, have been drawn from every branch of modern culture in Europe and elsewhere. They wish to call to the attention of the Holy See, the appalling responsibility it would incur in the history of the human spirit were it to refuse to allow the Traditional Mass to survive, even though this survival took place side by side with other liturgical forms.
Fifty-six of the most prominent and celebrated English writers, artists, and musicians of the time signed it—- among them Vladimir Ashkenazy and Yehudi Menuhin (pace Mr. Foxman), Graham Greene, Robert Graves and Cecil Day-Lewis (onetime poet laureate and father of Daniel), Iris Murdoch, and, in the end most importantly, Agatha Christie. The importance of the last signatory lay in the fact that the then-Pontiff was a devotee of her mysteries, and so granted her request. The resulting permission for the Old Mass to be continued in England to some degree has therefore been dubbed the “Agatha Christie Indult.”

What these illustrious folk understood, better than many theologians, was that the health of the Catholic Church was and is integral to the health of the West. If our civilization is to withstand its current slate of internal and external foes—throughout Europe and the Diaspora—it must regain its hold on the things that first enkindled its spirit. Restoration of liturgical sanity and unity within the Catholic Church will inevitably have a beneficial “trickle-down” effect far beyond the Church’s borders. Those who prize the health of the West must welcome Benedict XVI’s action, regardless of their own creed.

Of course, this is only one part of the new Pope’s apparent program—all of which, however, tend to the same ends. His ongoing efforts at the formation of an Anglican Rite within the Catholic Church bode well for members of that Communion who are disgusted with their hierarchies’ headlong retreat from Christian orthodoxy and morality. The Pope’s initiatives to shore up the beleaguered Patriarchate of Constantinople show an authentic desire to move past the hatreds and bitternesses of the past that have so long sundered East and West. Recent moves to discipline erring theologians and free the Catholics of China are very hopeful signs that the long slumber of the post-Vatican II era is over. With Benedict’s encouragement, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Mexico City has excommunicated the Mayor and City Council of his town, who have introduced abortion to their bailiwick (although they seem less capable of policing the streets). This is an example that—given the caliber of his episcopal appointments— may well be echoed one day in New York , Boston , or even Washington.

Should the Pope be successful in his attempts to straighten the course of the Barque of Peter, it will of course be of immense benefit to his own flock. But more importantly, to the non-Catholic, it will restore the Church’s ability to function as effective a watchdog over the health of the body politic of the West as ever she did under Pius XI.

But do not be fooled. The viciousness of the attacks of the liberal media, such as Mr. Foxman, and various Catholic clerics and other such pundits on the new liturgical decree are being echoed in other spheres. From Belgium , news has come that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activists have brought charges against Mgr André-Mutien Léonard, the Catholic bishop of Namur , for homophobia. In that country, this is a criminal offence under the country’s 2003 Anti-Discrimination Act.

In an interview last April in the Walloon weekly Télé Moustique, the bishop is said to have described gαys as “abnormal”. According to Michel Graindorge, the activists’ lawyer, the bishop intended to “stigmatize” ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, whose “identity and dignity is debased from the moment that the bishop considers them to be abnormal.” In Australia, A New South Wales parliamentary committee will investigate whether Sydney ’s George Cardinal Pell was in contempt of parliament in warning that there would be “consequences” for Catholic members of the NSW parliament who voted for a bill that would scrap a ban on stem cell research. The alleged free nations of the West, apparently intent on ѕυιcιdє, will—should these trends continue—punish Catholic prelates for doing their duty as they believe Christ has called them to do. Nor, in the end, will it only be Catholics so threatened, but anyone who holds to what the West has been, and what it needs to be if it is to survive.

For such as these, then, any and all of Benedict XVI’s efforts at rebuilding the Catholic ethos should be welcomed, and their success prayed for. But all of these things can bring little surprise to students of history. Very often, down through the two millennia of the Church’s history, internal reform has been followed by external persecution—itself usually the prelude to a period of triumph. In this light, July 7, 2007, may well be seen in future centuries to be as momentous a date as September 11, 2001—although, of course, one that points not toward death but rebirth. Whatever the case, keep your eyes on Rome.

Could the Latin Mass Save Western Civilization? - Taki's Magazine

-------------------



So what do we all think? I hate to think of a future in Western Europe where the RCC is in ruins, is the 60 years of liberal hegemony since V2 over? Is there room for Traditionalists to rejoin the Church and work to save it from the inside, as the wind finally seems blowing in our direction?

Or is this jut a fools hope?

It's sad that poor Pat Buchanan seems to be falling for the motu. The conciliar church says, "Oh, just go back to sleep." It's as if he's falling for what he's been fighting against all this time.

Signs of renewal in the Conciliar church?

Quote

Priest once found guilty of molesting given supervisory post in Newark archdiocese

Father Michael Fugee, who was named to co-direct the archdiocesan office of priestly formation, was convicted in 2003 of sɛҳuąƖ contact with minors. The conviction was later overturned by an appeals court, which ruled that the trial judge had improperly allowed jurors to review a statement in which the accused priest said that he is ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ or bisɛҳuąƖ.

“We have every confidence in him,” a spokesman for the archdiocese said of Father Fugee. The spokesman assured reporters that in his new role Father Fugee will not have any contact with children.

Source:  http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16980

This is your renewal in the Conciliar church.  Don't make the mistake of thinking these people have anything to do with the Catholic Church.

Obviously, despite the fact the Latin Mass is no longer banned, there is a tonne of issues and people within the Church destroying it from the inside.

I am new to this so don't pretend to be an expert, but the question I am raising is how much can we do to salvage the Church if we (Traditionalists) are on the outside.

Surely, in order to evict the liberals, Freemasons and other degenerates from the Church proper, we need good men on the inside fighting for the good side, no?

Or is the SSPX (as important a role it has played in the past decades) forever going to reman a separate body?

I contend that we can't wait until things are perfect, that if all 680,000 SSPX members rejoined the Church and Traditionalist Priests tried to rise as high s they could we could see the beginning of a counter revolution.

I realise this is fanciful and probably not realistic, but I feel it's an important point and worth considering.

Quote from: Anthony Benedict

Sans Peur: Please do not give further consideration to joining the heretical and schismatic Orthodox.

Yes, they are lovely people indeed.  And, yes, they are traditional to the core.  And, yes, they look today to be liturgically exemplary compared to the travesties in the Roman Church under the Novus Ordo regime of terror.

But, as it was first stated in the earliest, true councils and by many popes and saints ever since, no one can be saved who does not hold fast to ALL the dogmas, doctrines and articles of the Faith as prescribed by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded on Peter by Our Lord Himself.

That, the Orthodox do not.

Further, their "religion" is antithetical to supernatural faith. Without which, again, no man can be saved.

Now, a poor Russian or Greek widow who has never learned otherwise and did her best to practise what was prescribed for her by the patriarchs and well intentioned Orthodox priests - can she be saved? I think yes inasmuch as she did what she could with what she had.

But a literate Catholic who would turn his back on the Church, knowingly entering an heretical, schismatic organization?  I hardly need tell you the answer.

I will try to find an excellent analysis of this grave issue - for the Orthodox and anyone considering joining them - and post it ASAP.

I think Catholics who so easily dismiss Orthodoxy have not fully immersed themselves in it. I am a Westerner and love the Church but in many ways the East is far superior... One only has to look at monasteries like Athos, Valaam and Optina.

But yes I will be happy to read any links you provide.

Thank you.

Hello, Sans Peur.


One need not immerse oneself in something to know that it is evil. Just because something may LOOK good does not necessarily mean it IS good. I very much admire and love the Eastern traditions, but if one denies any article of the Catholic faith knowingly, then that person is not a member of the True Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church of our Lord Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.

Granted, I understand that the later and final division of the Eastern Orthodox from the Roman Catholic Church was very much due to the lack of action on the part of Western political leaders to stop the Ottomans Turks from overtaking what was left of the Byzantine Empire. And that is because those political leaders did not obey the Pope who called for the protection of the East concerning the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century. Bad things happen when one does not obey the Pope.

Sans peur,

The Orthodox reject the Papacy.
They do not understand or accept Catholic teaching on Original Sin.
Hence the Immaculate Conception means little to them.
That's just a start.

You can find a good article here:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/orthodox.htm#1

It is a good thing for " Catholics (to) so easily dismiss Orthodoxy ". It is not somehing to immerse yourself in if you value and seek eternal happiness. You must seek Truth in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church which Jesus Christ founded on Peter.

I think Catholics who so easily dismiss Orthodoxy have not fully immersed themselves in it. I am a Westerner and love the Church but in many ways the East is far superior... One only has to look at monasteries like Athos, Valaam and Optina.

But yes I will be happy to read any links you provide.

Thank you.

Here ya go....

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2007/features_apr07.html#top

Here's an excerpt:

"
April 2007

Eastern Orthodoxy Unveiled

 
JAMES LARSON

We tend to think of Eastern Orthodoxy as a branch of Christianity whose form of worship and religious symbolism may seem rather strange to us, and we are also ready to admit that the one really important Catholic doctrine which they have rejected is the Primacy of the Pope (we tend to mistakenly think of their rejection of the Filioque - the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son - as being a rather marginal issue), but most of us are not prepared to consider that Orthodoxy is something radically different, and even opposed, to Catholicism.

However, such is the case. The extraordinary fact is that virtually any serious Orthodox writer will be the first to make precisely this claim: namely, that Orthodoxy and Eastern Spirituality represent a faith and spirituality which in many ways are in profound opposition to the Latin Tradition. And this, despite the fact that his counterpart in the West is usually expending a good deal of effort in attempting to prove that the differences are minimal and inconsequential.

Dionysisus and the "Palamite" tradition

I want to begin our analysis of Eastern Orthodox theology and spirituality with a series of quotes which I hope will shock the reader into a state of acute watchfulness. It is, of course, always possible to distort a writer’s thought by taking quotations out of context. We will therefore be discussing their full meaning in relationship to Eastern theology and spirituality as we proceed in our discussion. For the present, however, I would like the reader to try to conceive of any context in which the following statements might be acceptable. They are all taken from authors writing in what certainly must be considered the dominant Orthodox tradition.
Two of the writers are of ancient tradition. Dionysisus the Areopagite was considered until relatively recent times to be of apostolic origins. In his writings he disingenuously portrays himself as a contemporary of the apostles, and to have witnessed the solar eclipse at the Crucifixion. It is now known for certain that he lived somewhere around the year 500 A.D. We should also note that the writings of Dionysisus are of immense importance to Orthodox tradition, and have also probably been the primary source of Neoplatonic contamination of Western theology.

Gregory of Palamas (1296-1359) is considered by the Eastern Church to be a Saint (proclaimed to be so by a Synod in Constantinople in 1368), and the greatest theologian in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. A series of Eastern Councils in the 14th century endorsed his theology as being the doctrinal basis for Orthodox Christianity.

The two other writers, Vladimir Lossky and John Meyendorff, are probably considered the most respected explicators and apologists for this tradition (the "Palamite" tradition) in the twentieth century. I would therefore ask the reader to carefully consider all the following quotes:

1. "The cult of the humanity of Christ, is foreign to Eastern tradition….The way of the imitation of Christ is never practiced in the spiritual life of the Eastern Church." (Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 243

2. "The Eastern tradition knows nothing of ‘pure nature’ to which grace is added as a supernatural gift. For it, there is no natural or ‘normal’ state, since grace is implied in the act of creation itself." (Lossky, 101)

3. "The notion of a state of grace of which the members of the Church can be deprived, as well as the distinction between venial and mortal sins, are foreign to Eastern tradition." (Lossky, 180)

4."The notion of merit is foreign to Eastern tradition." (Losski, 197)

5."The essence of God is everywhere, for, as it is said, ‘the Spirit fills all things’, according to essence. Deification is likewise everywhere, ineffably present in the essence and inseparable from it, as its natural power. But just as one cannot see fire, if there is no matter to receive it, nor any sense organ capable of perceiving its luminous energy, in the same way one cannot contemplate deification if there is no matter to receive the divine manifestation. But if with every veil removed it lays hold of appropriate matter, that is of any purified rational nature, freed from the veil of manifold evil, then it becomes itself visible as a spiritual light, or rather it transforms these creatures into spiritual light." (Gregory Palamas, The Triads, p. 89)

6. "This latter division [of mankind into two sexes] was made by God in prevision of sin, according to St. Maximus, who is here reproducing the thought of St. Gregory of Nyassa. ‘Being, which has had its origin in change – says the latter – retains an affinity with change. This is why He who, as Scripture says, sees all things before their coming to be, having regarded or rather having forseen in advance by the power of His anticipatory knowledge in which direction the movement of man’s free and independent choice would incline, having thus seen how it would come to pass, added to the image the division into male and female: a division which has no relation to the divine Archetype, but which, as we have said, is in agreement with irrational nature’." (Lossky, 108-109)"

I was raised Catholic, and am still one nominally, but have in recent years considered converting to Orthodoxy.

Regarding your original post, the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificuм" issued by Benedict XVI implies that the Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI (the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi') and the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII (an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi') are of equal value.

These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

I cannot see any truth in it. It cannot bear good fruit, and indeed it has not.