The fallacy of the Novus Ordo growth is the lie if the century. Here is the truth.

While "New Mess" Attendance Plummets Close to Single Digits JPII has called for a National Day of Prayer in the United States for more priests. The poor man shows again that he is out of touch with reality. More "priests" aren't going to help the New Order get out of the deep pit into which it is rapidly sinking, in the United States and elsewhere.

First of all, the New Order doesn't have "priests." It has presbyters. That is the official term that the New Order uses for its ministers, although most Novus Ordinarians, out of habit, incorrectly keep calling Novus Ordo presbyters "priests." What is the difference?

A presbyter in the New Order is literally an "elder" (that is what the Greek word essentially means) ordained to "preside over the assembly." Like a Protestant minister or the Masonic Worshipful Master, he sits in a big chair to oversee the goings-on. A priest in the traditional rite is ordained to offer sacrifice (that is what any "priest" literally does, even pagan priests), the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, on an altar, not a table.

Secondly, the New Order doesn't need any more presbyters. Attendance at the Novus Ordo service is dropping like a millstone into the sea, falling from 80% to 15% in just forty years. In Europe, attendance is already in the single digits, in many countries at less than 5%.

Thirdly, the New Order is closing churches right and left, in some cases up to a third of the total (in this round of closures, with more to come). The Newchurch bishops in the United States admit that the closings result from sinking attendance. Who needs more presbyters to serve a dying religion, the New Order?

Newchurch in the United States, for political reasons, like to throw out the figure of 63,000,000 "Catholics," which is picked up by an ignorant liberal press without analysis. Impartial figures from Gallup and the University of Chicago show that only about 10,000,000 of those "Catholics" ever see the inside of a church after their Baptism, unless they return to have one of those Novus Ordo "Hindu" funerals in white, with open coffin and automatic deification.

This is a counterfeit "crisis," just as the New Order is counterfeit Catholicism, and as the "New Mass" is a counterfeit Mass.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 19, 2004

Answers

bump.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 19, 2004.

Attendance at the Novus Ordo service is dropping like a millstone into the sea, falling from 80% to 15% in just forty years. - TC

What's your source? Is this global or in certain diocese?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 19, 2004.

Andy;

This poll is just the U.S. but the more important question is the why of the matter.

When there is an epidemic we want to know how widespread, baut more important is what is the cause.

It is not just the numbers of the poll, but the virus that has entered the church.

Little comfort to say that Europe and North America, Australia and the rest are disappearing but Africa is coming alive. They re not yet wise enough, just like a new baby. The day will come when they wake up and then the virus will hit there too.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 19, 2004.

Well what do you know! A whole continent is "coming alive". In fact, they have more vocations to the priesthood than they can handle, and hundreds of thousands of conversions to Catholicism per year! All that in spite of the fact that they are faithful to the Vicar of Christ, and celebrate that nasty Novus Ordo Mass! So much for the ridiculous theory that the order of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass causes reductions in attendance! You seem to forget that decreases in Mass attendance and conversions were primary reasons why Vatican II was convened. Yes, that was the Latin Mass that Catholics were failing to attend in ever increasing numbers!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 20, 2004.

Paul

"....hundreds of thousands of conversions to **Catholicism** per year!"

isn't that the point, Paul. **Catholicism**.

and as St Augustine puts it [colloquillised by yours truly]:

"Just because most people do it, doesn't make it right: just because few do it, doesn't make it wrong"

IOW, these numbers you mention are possibly quite meaningless.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.

IOW, these numbers you mention are possibly quite meaningless. - Ian

I tend to agree that it's not the numbers that matter. So why does anyone bring up numbers at all? This thread started with the numbers game.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 20, 2004.

The story always comes up about the Church declining before V2 Please provide proof. There are tons of surveys that show after V2 the graph went down just like that black friday in Oct. 1929.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com)), December 20, 2004.

Cardinal Billot warned that such a council could be “maneuvered” by “the worst enemies of the Church, the modernists, who are already getting ready, as certain indications show, to bring forth the revolution in the Church.

The cardinals who advised Pope Pius XI against calling a Church Council at that time were aware of the writings of the excommunicated Canon Roca (1830-1893), who preached revolution and Church “reform,” and also predicted a future change in the liturgy: “[T]he divine cult in the form directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council, which will restore to it the venerable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.

With Roca’s writings in mind, as well as the growing currents of modernism, the wise cardinals could foresee that the enemies of the Church could use a Council as a weapon to introduce revolution into the Church and her liturgy. The enemies of the Church bided their time, waiting for a Pope that could be maneuvered enough to provide a window for the assault and revolution within. The time came with the arrival of Pope John XXIII:

At the news of the death of Pius XII, the old Dom Lambert Beauduin, a friend of Roncalli’s (the future John XXIII) confided to Father Bouyer: “If they elect Roncalli, everything would be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and of consecrating ecumenism.”

Pope Pius IX declared on June 18, 1871: “That which I fear is not the Commune of Parish—no—that which I fear is Liberal Catholicism ... I have said so more than forty times, and I repeat to you now, through the love that I bear you. The real scourge of France is Liberal Catholicism, which endeavors to unite two principles as repugnant to each other as fire and water.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com)), December 20, 2004.

does anyone know why VII was convened?

was there a reason?

i have a pretty good history book that doesn't seem to understand why.

it suggests that Pope John was elected because he was old and amiable - unlikely to change anything or offend anyone, and likely to die sooner rather than later. that allowed time for a successor to emerge. but Pope John, despite his limited mandate, then set in train events that have been surrounded in controversy ever since.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.

does anyone know why VII was convened?

To the best of my memory, Pope John XXIII claims to have called the Council under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 20, 2004.

Jake

to your knowledge, did the Holy Ghost tell him why, or did He just say "Call a Council".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.

For all I know, the "inspiration" could have been some bad seafood from the night before.

Here's a link that mentions it.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 20, 2004.

If the Catholic Church is the one true faith on earth today and there is no salvation outside of it why is there a lack of evangelizing to spread this good news. Why should the leaders of Vatican 2 spread the faith? Vatican 2 has said that other religions give you the means of salvation. If this is the case, then why convert to Catholicism. Take a look at the leadership of JP II. He has meet with thousands of world leaders and hasn't converted or attempted to convert a single one.

There doesn't seem to be any interest from the Vatican leadership to push for conversion of anyone. Besides not converting anyone they have signed agreements with other religions that make them equal to ours. Before Vatican 2 you could only go to a Catholic Church; now with all the agreements look how many churches you can go to. There is no need to convert anyone if their religion has signed an agreement with the Church; after all they are saved in their church as much as you are saved in yours.

If you want to know why there isn't a big push to convert the world all you have to do is look at the leadership.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com)), December 20, 2004.

The Catholic Church currently has more missionaries evangelizing the world than at any previous time in history, and more missionaries than all other churches combined. There has never been a time since Christ founded the Church that the Church has not been actively evangelizing.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 21, 2004.

Paul;

Please point out one incident, just one in 25 years where JP2 has gone anywhere and evangelized. He has even gone so far as to say "I do not come to procelytize"

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 21, 2004.

I think John Paul II very presence, his natural charisma has been good for the Church. He evangelizes without appearing to. It is a natural part of him. He doesn't have to say he's doing it. It just happens. I know many Protestants who went to see him when he visited Baltimore and were excited to see him.

There is a picture taken from one of our cameras circling the earth of JPII at the center of throngs of people in Poland during the fall of the Iron Curtain. One whit speck --- Very moving. He has done much for the Church. (In a good way)

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 21, 2004.

He has done much for the Church. (In a good way)

Like what?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 21, 2004.

just found this -- PJXIII and VII

http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/j23open.txt

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 21, 2004.

Hi Jake,

No use going into it, we won't agree.

But I am interested in the St. Benedict Medal you mentioned somewhere sometime ago. I'm sure it was you. You had some?

P.S. While I often disagree with your positions, you generally present them with great wit--- which I enjoy. I'm really not up to sparring with you. (I mean this in a good way)

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 21, 2004.

I have some coming in from New Mexico in a day or three. Want one? Drop a line to sempertrad at yahoo dot com.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 21, 2004.

Jake

Thanks in advance

Just sent you an e-mail!

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 21, 2004.

TC,

Please point out one incident, just one in 2,000 years, where ANY pope during a public appearance has tried to use the occasion to "evangelize"?? That is not the purpose of a pope's public appearances, as the Holy Father in his incomparable wisdom and holiness rightly stated.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 21, 2004.

"Please point out one incident, just one in 2,000 years, where ANY pope during a public appearance has tried to use the occasion to "evangelize"?? "

well, Paul, let's start with St Peter, shall we ;-)))

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 22, 2004.

Popes, including Pope John Pual II, make many public appearances. I'm not sure what people define as "evangelizing", but aren't many of the pope's speeches at the Angelus examples of "evangelizing." They are there for public consumption and he lays out Church teaching.

Pope John Paul II gets a bad rap for being too tolerant, for not being a stronger disciplinarian, for being too ambiguous, and for being too "diplomatic." That's how I've seen it, anyway. But if we're going to get an honest picture of the man as pope, shouldn't we also look at his words on the sacredness of marriage and life, on priestly celibacy, against female ordination, on the merits of suffering in Christ, on the mystery of evil, on Church social teaching, on the Eucharist and Eucharistic adoration, and on the Rosary?

These writings and speeches lay out Church teaching and are usually intended to instruct the world as well as Catholics on the truth. In my estimation this is "evangelizing," but maybe my definition is too broad.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 22, 2004.

This talk of subtle evangelizing can be cleared in a few words of Our Lord.

"If you deny Me before men, I will deny you before my Father in Heaven".

Not more clear than that. JP2 went to a synagogue and would not even mention the word Jesus in all the time that he wa there. Myltiply that by a million miles of travel to many parts of the world and you get that silent treatment that Our Lord receives from him.

This man is a "Vicar of Christ?. Got any more funny lines?

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com)), December 22, 2004.

Andy

i watched the Pope's Jubilee on TV - and, quite frankly, i was moved to tears. one of the people presenting the show was too - crying on public TV. we saw the images of that man's life as Pope that so clearly proved that he loves dearly every other human being on this earth. it was awesome. in that personal sense, he is a giant of Christianity.

and, no, i don't doubt his sincerity, one little bit - it's not an act, it's him being him - nor do i confuse his true, tangible aura with mere charisma.

he's the real McCoy. 100%.

well, that's the heart bit done.

now for the head.

i have recently read Dominus Iesus again.

"now you see it, now you don't". words fail me.

as a parent, and in that limited sense only, i have a view on this. sometimes the best love is tough love. my NO priest needs loads of that. so do i.

the one thing about this Pope that really strikes is that (A) he wears his heart on his sleeve, and (B) he is a trained, and technically gifted [by all accounts], philosopher. i think this is relevant.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 22, 2004.

I agree with you Ian.

I do need to read Dominus Iesus again though, before commenting on it.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 22, 2004.

and, no, i don't doubt his sincerity, one little bit - it's not an act, it's him being him - nor do i confuse his true, tangible aura with mere charisma.

he's the real McCoy. 100%"

Thaat is just the trouble Ian. He is indeed the real McCoy 100%. He seems to know exactly what his purpose is, and he is doing an excellent job.

You can call me a conspiracy nut, if you so desire, but the communists were entering the church by the hundreds during the twenties and thirties. Consult bella dodd and Louis Budenz for that. They testified before congres as to how they put well over 1000 into the priesthood. Is it too far fetched to believe that one of them has reached the papacy? Particularly one from a Communist country.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com)), December 22, 2004.

Many credit John Paul II with playing a significant part in the colapse of the soviet block and the end of the Iron Curtain.

I like a heart displayed plainly on the sleeve where I can see it. and agree with you Ian, he's the real deal. I too have great respect for him and have no doubts about his motives. He is an example of what Christian love is supposed to be.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 22, 2004.

TC, you said "You can call me a conspiracy nut, if you so desire, but the communists were entering the church by the hundreds during the twenties and thirties. Consult bella dodd and Louis Budenz for that. They testified before congres as to how they put well over 1000 into the priesthood. Is it too far fetched to believe that one of them has reached the papacy? Particularly one from a Communist country."

Even if all of this is true, "it ain't over 'till it's over." The gates of hell have NOT prevailed and the gates of hell WILL NOT prevail. Don't you think the Lord can handle this? Look at the Church's history. How did it survive all of the corruptions in the past? The same way it will now. The Lord will respond to the cries of His people. So what, Satan sends in a 1,000 commies, God will send in 10,000. Satan sends in 5,000 Freemasons, the Lord sends in 50,000 ardent lovers of Himself.

Have faith, TC, He has already won!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 22, 2004.

Gail; You are of course correct. I read the end of the book and it is as you say. I hammer away though at the reality of the times in which we have to live.

If I were to wait for the Vatican to give me the Mass to which I have a right I woild be dead and gone fo a long time.

Quo Primum says I have a right to it, but these bishops do not obey an infallible document. We therefore have to take things into our own hands to enjoy these rights.

Fortunately there are enough places like SSPX and others who offer these rights so I cannot wait for JP or his bishops to throw me a crumb.

God bless you folks in the Novus Ordo for trying to hl d things together, but I think that you will admit to a lot of frustration.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com)), December 22, 2004.