From what I can see, none of the other Sui iuris Churches have seen it necessary to destroy their own Patrimony like we have. That being said I will note that modernist ideas and a fawning love for the Eastern Schismatics seems to permeate a lot of Eastern Catholic circles.
Your post reminds me of my visit to a Coptic Orthodox church about a year ago,
when there were Moslems in the news having riots in Egypt. I wanted to get a
pulse on the attitude held by American Christians who have relatives and friends
in Egypt. I was surprised to find this "fawning love" you speak of. Everyone I was
able to hear said the same thing, that Moslems are good people, and some of their
friends are Moselms, and that they have extended family members who have
married into Moslem families. Curiously, I was unable to find anyone who knew of
a Moslem woman who had married a Christian man. It's always a Christian woman
who married a Moslem man, and then not only did she convert to become a Moslem
herself, but sometimes she finds herself on the lowest rung of a ladder, as it were,
other rungs being other wives!
The principle attack against the Church has always been on the Roman Rite. Over
the centuries, the Pope has stood in the way of the devil's assaults. It was the
primary goal of Freemasons to put one of their own in the throne of St. Peter. Once
their corruption took hold in the Vatican, the Mass could be attacked. The Mass was
target number two. Then, with one and two somewhat under control, their attack
can fan out to all the other offices and earmarks of the Church. Meanwhile,
Catholics are becoming less aware of the problem, as if their minds are obscured
by a "black fog" of unknowing. In many ways, those who call themselves Catholic
today are functionally ignorant of what the Church teaches. In saner times, they
would be "heretics," but in these days, they simply don't know any better, and
if someone tries to teach them, it quickly becomes evident that they are not able
to learn the lesson material. There is an element of will involved, supported by the
fact that they have heard a priest, or several priests, tell them the opposite of
what this someone is trying to teach them.
We are now in the second half of the century of the demise of Catholicism. It was
60 or 70 years ago that it got started, but certainly 50 years ago. You can pretty
much peg it to 1960 when the tide changed direction. In 1960 there was no such
thing as a "traditional Catholic," because all Catholics were traditional. When a
Catholic stopped being traditional, he was then suddenly a "fallen-away Catholic."
The term, fallen-away Catholic, was in common use before Vatican II. And then
with Lumen Gentium 8, and "The Church of Christ ... subsists in the Catholic
Church," it suddenly became popular to say that "You see, there IS salvation
outside the Church." Vatican II did not have to proclaim that. All "the Council"
needed to say is that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, and
word of mouth spread the heresy that there is salvation outside the Church. That
was the end of the phrase "fallen-away Catholic."
That's how it happened.
so the the devil wants the Byzantine Catholics to celebrate a DivineLiturgy that is very close to the Byzantine Orthodox so they can embrace false ecuŠ¼enism?
Byzantine Catholics share the same Patrimony as the Eastern Orthodox. There is no problem with that. The Byzantine Rite is of equal dignity with the Roman.
The problem I see is that a lot of Byzantine Catholics seem to see the Eastern (schismatic) Orthodox as part of the True Church whereas traditional Roman Catholics are often looked at with suspicion or considered schismatics ourselves. Perhaps they could learn some lessons from their great defenders of the Faith and Rome such as Blessed Theodore Romzha, Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky and St Josephat.
Topic: "traditional" catholics... (Read 3032 times)