"It's Too Unecumenical" : A Wager Uncontested.

 

Jesus Christ: the "Truth" to be believed and adhered to entirely; The "Way" to be followed exclusively; so as to gain Him the "Life" for eternity... 

Preamble:

The Sunday of this week, 30th April, 2023, was, according to the Traditional Catholic Liturgical calendar untouched by the impious hands of Modernist liturgical wreck-novators, the 3rd Sunday after the Octave of Easter. I posted on my "WhatsApp status", as is my custom, the Collect for the day. 

Few of  those who viewed my status update replied with an "Amen", one viewer however, was thrilled by the doctrine enshrined in the Collect. Sending a reply he wrote thus: 

Today's Collect? A powerful prayer. I can wager a 100 bucks that the prayer has been thrown out by the NO. It's too unecumenical.😊

N.B: NO = Novus Ordo, the nickname for the Modernist impostor ecumenical one-world religion, derived from "Novus Ordo Missae" -i.e. new order of the Mass; the name they falsely call their ecumenical service... 

 I told him that I wouldn't dare to counter wager... For it would be a surprise, if it is not among those thrown out. Meanwhile, I opted to dare go into the rabbit hole concerning the topic. The rabbit hole I did dare to enter, and what did I find? Read on... 

The historic reply to my status update... 

The "too Unecumenical" Collect:

The collect for the Third Sunday after the Octave of Easter in question goes thus:

Deus, qui errántibus, ut in viam possint redíre justítiæ, veritátis tuæ lumen osténdis: da cunctis, qui christiána professióne censéntur, et illa respúere, quæ huic inimíca sunt nómini; et ea, quæ sunt apta, sectári.

It translates as: 

Almighty God, Who showest to them that be in error the light of thy truth, to the intent that they may return into the way of righteousness, grant unto all those who profess themselves Christians to reject those things which are contrary to that name, and follow such things as are agreeable to the same. 

 The Unecumenical elements 

For anyone familiar with what is essential to Modernist ecumenical endeavor, the contention that the above collect is "too Unecumenical" would pass unchallenged. The accent on the following themes grants this Unecumenical reputation to the above collect:

• Showing truth to those in error.
• Returning into the way of righteousness.
• Rejecting things contrary to the Christian name. 

How do these relate to the essentials of Modernist ecumenical endeavor? 

Modernist Ecumenism, it's essentials: 

Reading the third and fourth paragraphs of the "decree" of the Modernist robber council on ecumenism the following points can be easily gleaned:

• Those who are separated from the Catholic Church, but lay hold to the Christian name, do so rightly, and are by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.
• Being thus not deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation, they cannot be said to be in "error" as to be "shown the light of truth" in order to "return to the way of righteousness". 
• Not being in error, but in possession of elements of truth, Catholics must "dialogue" with them on equal footings, avoiding "expressions, judgments and actions" which would suggest that they were at any point in time in error, or are still in error. 
• Their separation from the Catholic Church cannot be said to be "contrary to the Christian name": their fidelity to Christ's will remains unimpaired and must be a paradigm for Catholics to evaluate their own fidelity, which evaluation will predispose them to enter with vigor the path of renewal and reform. 
• Obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical union being gradually overcome, [i.e. with Catholics not insisting on possessing the Truth exclusively, and all others being in error; Catholics not calling those separated from Church either heretics or schismatics...etc]; all will be gathered in an ecumenical service pleasing to the separate branches of "Christianity"

Having these essentials of Modernist ecumenical endeavor in mind, the "too Unecumenical" character of the Collect in question becomes unmistakably obvious. 

Thrown out? 

Thus far we tried to establish how "too Unecumenical" our choice Collect is. It must be remembered that my respondent unabashedly said "I can wager a 100 bucks that the prayer has been thrown out by the NO"

Though my respondent quickly noticed that 

Well, it happens that today the NO can't quite count. They celebrate today the 4th Sunday of Easter. And it's their good shepherd Sunday. 

It is interesting to see that, that Collect as it exists in the Traditional Roman Catholic Missal for the Third Sunday After Easter no longer exists in the apostate Roman missal. 

It is of no importance whether what is Traditionally the "Third Sunday After Easter" is in their calendar the "Fourth Sunday of Easter" and their own "Good Shepherd Sunday". The Traditional collect for the "Good Shepherd Sunday " (which is the second Sunday after Easter, coinciding with the Modernists' "Third Sunday Of Easter") is entirely different from what is obtainable in the Modernist Missal; thus:

Traditional Good Shepherd Sunday Collect:

"O God, Who by the humility of Thy Son hast raised up a fallen world, grant to Thy faithful people abiding joy; that those whom Thou hast delivered from the perils of eternal death, Thou mayest cause to enjoy endless happiness"

Modernist Good Shepherd Sunday Collect:

"Almighty ever-living God, lead us to a share in the joys of heaven, so that the humble flock may reach where the brave shepherd has gone before"

Evidently, the traditional Good Shepherd Sunday Collect was also displaced. Why so? Also "Unecumenical "? Well, apart from the ecumenical motive, there exists some other motives for such displacement reaction: the "negative theology" motive, based on the mentality of modern man to whom, according to the Modernists, the Church must conform so as to be relevant to-day.

"Negative"Theology, Doctrine: Motive for displacement.

Writing on "elimination of 'negative theology '" from the revised orations in the apostate Roman missal, Fr. Anthony Cakada of blessed memory says:

What doctrinal realities in the traditional orations are too negative or create difficulties for contemporary man? The list is extensive. The best way to get the flavor of the offending or now-irrelevant concepts is to imagine "contemporary man", and discover what he does not believe in, based on the texts Concilium altered or cut out of the Missal:  

Contemporary man can no longer bear to hear of the depravity of sin, the wounds sin inflicts, sin as snares of wickedness, sin gravely offending the divine Majesty, and sin as the way to perdition.

But why should he? There is no longer any need to feel terror in the face of God's fury, His indignation, or His blows of wrath, nor to feel weighed down by the burden of evil, like captive in the bonds of sin.

Contemporary man is at ease in his life, where he prefers not to be reminded of adversities, dangers, enemies, evils, and tribulations. He does not believe he merits evil in this life for evil deeds, that afflictions here result from sins, that being struck down by God heals him, or that he is worthy of chastisements.

Thanks to the diligent work of Concilium, the "psychology" of this man will encounter few difficulties with the new orations, since they do not emphasize such obsolete notions as the fragility of the human condition, infirmities of soul, our weak will, our languor of soul, our obstinacy of heart, the strength of our vices, concupiscence of the flesh and the eyes and continual affliction from excesses.

Since contemporary man feels no need to express a lack of confidence in his own justice or strength, and balks at putting aside pride by considering his helplessness, or unworthiness, and lack of merits, there is still less need to remind him of troubling concepts such as temptations, wicked thoughts, dangers to the soul, and enemies of soul and body...

Nor, because of his sins, should contemporary man consider himself a criminal, accused of grave offenses and begging for pardon, awaiting a vengeful sentence from an eternally just God, which would result in the loss of heaven, and consign him to everlasting death, eternal punishment, and the pains of hell and it's fire - all of which God so thoughtfully abolished in keeping, one presumes, with the spirit of Vatican II " [Rev. Anthony Cakada, Work of Human Hands, 225-228]

From this indepth analysis of the psychology of contemporary man, it is easy to see why  the traditional Good Shepherd Sunday Collect had to be replaced: it speaks of a "fallen world", "perils of eternal death" -concepts too negative in themselves, and which creates too much difficulty for contemporary man.  

In Fine 

Yes, the traditional Collect for the Third Sunday After Easter, being too Unecumenical had to be thrown away. Show me one who is unable to see how it is too Unecumenical, and in such a one you see, and sadly so, an uninformed Catholic Common Sense. Only such would contest a wager in favor of Modernist impostors, what must be left uncontested; and what a waste of time, energy and resources that would be! Oops...