The big Catholic news story at present, at least here in the U.S., concerns the rumor that Cardinal Blaze (as in, flaming) Cupich has informed the Institute of Christ the King (ICK) that, as of August 1, 2022, it may no longer offer the Roman Rite in the Archdiocese of Chicago.
The expectation heading into last weekend was that an announcement to this effect was going to be made on Sunday at the Shrine of Christ the King Sovereign Priest in Chicago, which serves as the U.S. Provincial Headquarters for the ICK.
Though that announcement never came, LifeSite News published a report on Monday citing a reliable source who confirmed that Cupich “has instructed the [ICK] to close down all public Masses by the end of July of this year” and that he “will remove their other faculties by August 1, that is to say, the Institute’s priests will not be permitted to hear confessions anymore.”
According to LifeSite’s insider, Cupich has been demanding that each individual priest of the ICK sign “a document with five or six points,” one of which is that “the Novus Ordo rite is the only true expression of the Roman rite,” a point taken directly from the text of Traditionis Cojones (and repeated in Desiderio Desideravi) which states that the Novus Ordo is “the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”
Thus far, according to the source, the ICK, to their credit, has refused to sign.
Let it be said that Bergoglio and Cupich deserve credit in their own right for having enough integrity to make plain what others have merely suggested: The Novus Ordo truly is the unique law of prayer for their church, that is, the one established at Vatican Council II, aka the conciliar church.
This being so, why wouldn’t they wish to excise the traditional and only Roman Rite from their church? Integrity demands it, for the simple reason that the so-called Traditional Latin Mass embodies an entirely different lex orandi, one that is incompatible with the false religion held and professed by the conciliar counterfeit church.
At this, it is necessary once again to consider more carefully the relationship between the “lex orandi” and the “lex credendi” (the law of belief) as made manifest in the sacred liturgy.
In the Encyclical, Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII addressed what he called the “fallacious reasoning” that led to the expression “Lex orandi, lex credendi – the law for prayer is the law for faith.” The Holy Father set the record straight, writing:
But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, “Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi” – let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer. (Mediator Dei 47)
This being so, the Holy Father went on to state:
The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church. (ibid.)
This tells us precisely why Jorge Bergoglio and his American Mini-Me are so Hell bent and determined to rid the conciliar church of the Mass of Ages, specifically, it has the Catholic faith for its content, not their faith, the conciliar faith. The body to which they belong, therefore, cannot tolerate this liturgy; it is like a deadly virus that cannot be allowed to infect its heretical hemoglobin.
This also serves to explain why such men are adamant in anointing the bastard rite of Paul the Pathetic as the only acceptable lex orandi; the Novus Ordo rule of prayer has been determined by the conciliar rule of belief, not the Catholic rule of belief.
So, how does the Council inform the rule of belief that determines the rule of prayer as expressed in the Novus Ordo liturgy?
For an answer, we must look not only to the text of Sacrosanctum Concilium, but also that of Unitatis Redintegratio, the Decree on Ecumenism.
Let’s begin with the former (the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) wherein the impetus for the so-called liturgical reform, and thus its goals, are plainly stated:
This sacred Council has several aims in view … to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy. (SC 1)
Right out of the gate the Constitution reveals, albeit in a somewhat veiled fashion, that ecumenism and humanism serve as the motivation behind the Council’s urgent call for a revision of the sacred liturgy. In other words, the “reform” is principally aimed at making the liturgy attractive to non-Catholics, as if it is a marketing tool to be tweaked in accordance with the appetites of potential consumers.
The Council’s ecumenical aims are reiterated and elaborated upon several paragraphs later:
Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord’s supper. (SC 10)
In order to fully comprehend the gravity of these citations from Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Council’s contribution to the present liturgical crisis, it’s necessary to examine the Decree on Ecumenism for insight. This only makes logical sense given the Council’s ecumenical “aims” as noted above, but I am unaware of any other commentators that have done so.
The Decree on Ecumenism states:
For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect … it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (UR 3)
NB: According to this, the heretics and schismatics are “in communion [albeit imperfect] with the Catholic Church.” Not so according to the traditional and true lex credendi of the Church, which holds that such a one is neither a member of the Body of the Church nor in communion with Christ.
Whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. (cf Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 10, 11)
The Decree on Ecumenism continues its assault on Catholic doctrine:
Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons who, though attached to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. (UR 4)
NB: According to this treatment, the “divisions among Christians” somehow render the Church deficient, whereas the traditional and true lex credendi of the Church is that she will always be in full possession of her catholicity, and furthermore, it is the heretics and schismatics that are deficient, prevented as they are by their obstinance from being all that they should be as willed by Jesus Christ.
One final citation from the Decree on Ecumenism will suffice:
Church renewal has therefore notable ecumenical importance. Already in various spheres of the Church’s life, this renewal is taking place. The Biblical and liturgical movements … these should be considered as pledges and signs of the future progress of ecumenism. (UR 6)
Having proclaimed that the Church is deficient (lacking in catholicity) due to “divisions among Christians,” the Council insists that the ecumenical movement, which once was ordered toward “promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it” (Mortalium Animos 10) for their own good, is now to be considered ordered toward renewing the Church, of which the liturgical reform is to play a crucial role.
Using these citations from Unitatis Redintegratio as interpretive keys, we can rephrase the citations from Sacrosanctum Concilium to state more clearly what the text truly intends to convey:
The Council is undertaking a reform of the liturgy so that, once revised, it might serve to attract heretics, schismatics and indeed all of mankind into the household of the Church (SC 1), where they, along with Catholics, can come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to receive Holy Communion.
NB: The utter absence of any call to conversion speaks volumes!
The lex orandi made manifest in the Mass of Ages cannot serve this end. Why? Because its rule of prayer reflects, and has been determined by, a lex credendi that flatly rejects the Council’s false claim that the Church is lacking in catholicity, and its blatantly erroneous proposition that heretics and schismatics are members of the Body of the Church.
The Novus Ordo, by contrast, while it deviates in many ways from the letter of Sacrosanctum Concilium in certain of its particulars, as a whole, is just what one should expect given the Council’s aims: It is a heretic-friendly, man-centered, rite where even heathens and Jews can feel welcome. [Note the insertion of two Jewish baruchas (“Blessed are you, Lord Our God…) to replace the Offertory in the Novus Ordo…]
In sum, what Jorge proposed in his letter to the bishops explaining Traditionis Cojones is absolutely true, even though many tradservatives are too weak of mind or spine to admit it:
The instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself…
The bottom line in all of this is unavoidable:
The law of belief of the conciliar church is very different than the law of belief of the Catholic Church. As such, so too are their respective laws of prayer.
The sooner one accepts this undeniable, plainly observable truth, the better.