W
- Status
F
Frosty
Guest
M
maurin
Guest
Paul,
I thought I had edited Claire’s quote to: I’m saddened that there are members of the SSPX who say the NO Mass…[is] often/usually not valid.
I’m still a novice with computers–my edit didn’t quite come out correctly. My response was meant to be to only those parts of Claire’s post specifically.
My understanding of the Society’s position is that the NO Mass, especially the EP’s butchering of the Church’s lex orandi, is not invalid. Offensive to the Cult of God and inebriating for the cult of man, but not invalid. More protestant than Catholic in its orientation, but not invalid.
M
maurin
Guest
which in and of itself expresses only part of the truth. But doesn’t it remind you of the protestant derision of the Crucifix, “Christ is no longer on the Cross”? I used to hear that quite a bit from people when I lived in Texas and South Carolina. I hear it often when co-workers get into my car.
M
maurin
Guest
Unfortunately, but for very very few NO Parishes, it isn’t at all evident by the behavior of the congregation before, during and after Mass.
L
Lisa44
Guest
Thanks Maurin for the great articles. As for Nichols rely, I have no clue what he is talking about.
M
maurin
Guest
I think he’s a conservative…conserving modernism (in Traditional costume?)
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Those in my family --who left the Catholic Church --promptly took down their Crucifixes and replaced them with plain Crosses.
L
Lisa44
Guest
If he was married to me he’d have to answer to - and your point is what?
J
japhy
Guest
What an easy way to dismiss his reply entirely!
Here are my comments on the first article (“Rome and the SSPX”).
Another feature of the new theology, according to the study, is a view of the sacraments as “making something present in reality”, rather than as “signs which produce an effect”, ie grace in the soul. Thus, the liturgy becomes the sacrament which makes present the mystery of salvation veiled beneath its ritual symbols, as does the gathered assembly which makes Christ present in its midst. Christ’s presence in His Word is also emphasised in the equivalence the new missal draws between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
Sacraments are signs which make present what they signify and they confer grace. Both facets should be made clear, not one at the expense of the other.
Christ’s presence in the Scriptures and in the assembled Church and in the priest is not the same presence as is found in the Most Blessed Sacrament. That is made clear in Mediator Dei, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and Mysterium Fidei.
The emphasis given to the Liturgy of the Word can be taken too far, it is true. But the Word and the Eucharist are two elements of one liturgical act, the Mass. While the Scriptures are not the sacrifice, they are part of the sacrificial liturgy for a reason.
It is true (as Mediator Dei 93 says), that “the conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite.” But that does not mean visible participation in the liturgy by the laity is not to be desired. Of course, it must also avoid extending to “an almost sacramental role” (as the article puts it). Vatican II said only one thing about laity fulfilling liturgical roles, and that was in Apostolicam Actuositatem 24.
What’s more, while the Extraordinary Form is an explicitly sacrificial rite as reflected in its structure - “oblation of the victim (Offertory), immolation (double consecration) and consummation (Communion)”…
Some would argue that the Extraordinary Form’s offertory prayers sound too much like an oblation of the victim. The bread and the wine are not yet the Eucharist. The offertory is the presentation of the simple elements of the host and the chalice to God, asking Him to find them acceptable so that they may then be offered to Him in the Eucharistic Prayer. Immediately after the Consecration, the Eucharist is then immediately offered back to the Father.
One of many examples included in the Study is the new Mysterium Fidei. Following the Consecration in the Ordinary Form, the people are invited to “proclaim the mystery of faith” according to one of three new acclamations, eg, “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again” etc.
The author (either of the article or of the SSPX study) has made the classic mistake of treating the (present) English translation of the Missal as the normative version of the Missal! There is no “Christ has died” acclamation in the Latin text, nor are the faithful instructed to “proclaim the mystery of faith.” Rather, the Latin words are simply: Mysterium fidei. The faithful make a response to that mystery of faith, they do not as such proclaim it. (The faulty English translation is being corrected, thanks be to God!)
P
PaulinVA
Guest
You know, I’m getting tired of your pejorative use of the term conservative.
There are a lot of people who are following the teachings of the Church unquestioningly, attempting to live a life in accord with what they have been taught. The have never even heard of the small group of priests who are in SSPX (.1% of the total worldwide) or the traditionalist movement in general.
These Catholics believe that they are the last bastion against the liberalization of the people in the Church. **They **are the Catholics who are providing an example every day of reverence and piety within the context of the Church today. While you guys are in your SSPX chapels, there are hundreds of thousands of faithful Catholics every day providing an example in those diocesan parishes that you say need renewal. And, they consider themselves conservative.
So, friend murin, stop playing semantic games and just let the conservative label go. As I’ve said before, you are only alienating the only allies you could have in the Church. And, you need allies to bring back the TLM.
Rant over
A
AJV
Guest
Which should not surprise one, japhy, since such erro or little sleights of hand are found in other areas of the study devoted to the IGMR. In in the midst of its good points, the entire study consistently makes arbitrary distinctions and dogmatizations of theological opinion. This is not least coplicated by the fact that the Traditional Missal actually has no counterpart to sections of the IGMR. Consequently, the authors are happily able to claim “The Traditional Mass by its structure shows such-and-such” and give their point “while the NO shows such and such” and quote the IGMR. Morevoer, it happily reduces treatment of things like Collects to a page (!) with blithe characterizations that don’t even take into account the sum of changes.
M
maurin
Guest
yeah, I’m tired of asking the same question without getting a response–just bull-dozed with false indignation.
what are the conservatives trying to conserve?
M
maurin
Guest
that’s funny, japh–I had the same response when I read Fr. Aidan’s response!!
He doesn’t address any of the points Moyra makes!!! Just kind of floats passed them. Like the anti-traditionalists do on this forum!
J
japhy
Guest
Moyra Dooly quotes from the GIRM (which quotes the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy). In her first quote from GIRM 2, she omits the final paragraph:
In this new Missal, then, the Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her perennial rule of belief (lex credendi), by which namely we are taught that the Sacrifice of the Cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass, which Christ the Lord instituted at the Last Supper and commanded the Apostles to do in his memory, are one and the same, differing only in the manner of offering, and that consequently the Mass is at once a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, of propitiation and satisfaction.
But she does bring it up later and calls it, essentially, lip-service. Perhaps the reason the Council documents paid great attention to the other dimensions of the Eucharist is because those other dimensions were suffering lack of attention. Her reference to it demonstrates her obvious bias towards the fake Catholicism which so many proffer but which is not found in the Church’s documents:
Everywhere the emphasis is on the Mass as a memorial of Christ’s Death, Resurrection and Ascension - the Paschal Mystery - which the people gather to celebrate as if salvation is guaranteed because God’s love is unconditional and His justice makes no demands.
That bolded statement does not help her argument because she’s repeating a blatant falsehood which the Church has never taught. She assumes it is the conclusion of the Council texts without explaining how she gets to that conclusion. She quotes three more paragraphs (5, 6, and 106) and then says “Which is all very puzzling.” How and why is it puzzling?
Now, it’s true the word “propitiatory” does not occur in the documents of Vatican II. But it does occur in the following post-Conciliar documents (apart from the GIRM, already quoted):
“We will [recall] the testimony offered by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who wrote the following memorable words for the neophytes whom he was instructing in the Christian faith: ‘After the spiritual sacrifice, the un-bloody act of worship, has been completed, we bend over this propitiatory offering and beg God…’” (1965, Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei 30)
“… we approach as a community the table of the Lord, in order to be nourished there, in a sacramental manner, by the fruits of the holy Sacrifice of propitiation.” (1980, Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae 4)
“The priest offers the holy Sacrifice in persona Christi; this means more than offering ‘in the name of’ or ‘in place of’ Christ. In persona means in specific sacramental identification with ‘the eternal High Priest’ who is the author and principal subject of this sacrifice of His, a sacrifice in which, in truth, nobody can take His place. Only He – only Christ – was able and is always able to be the true and effective ‘expiation for our sins and… for the sins of the whole world.’ Only His sacrifice – and no one else’s – was able and is able to have a ‘propitiatory power’ before God, the Trinity, and the transcendent holiness.” (Ibid. 8)
“Thus, by virtue of the consecration, the species of bread and wine re-present in a sacramental, unbloody manner the bloody propitiatory sacrifice offered by Him on the cross to His Father for the salvation of the world. Indeed, He alone, giving Himself as a propitiatory Victim in an act of supreme surrender and immolation, has reconciled humanity with the Father, solely through His sacrifice, ‘having cancelled the bond which stood against us.’” (Ibid. 9)
Moving on, she calls into question LG 10 and PO 5. She asks:
But how can priests be “sharers in a special way in Christ’s priesthood”? Does this mean that the laity and the ordained priesthood share in the one priesthood of Christ, albeit “each in its own proper way”? As Mediator Dei points out, the priesthood was instituted at the Last Supper. Am I right in thinking that this was achieved without the presence of the lay faithful?
I don’t understand the alarm in her questions. Priest are “sharers in a special way in Christ’s priesthood” because their participation in his priesthood is conferred through the graces of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The laity “participate, according to their condition, in the priesthood of Christ” by virtue of their baptism. (Pius XII, MD 88) This participation differs in degree and essence, as Vatican II reaffirmed. You can find this in Pius XI’s Miserentissimus Redemptor 9 and especially in Mediator Dei 80-104.
What does it matter that there were no “lay faithful” present at the Last Supper? She asks this as if every reader knows her conclusion. The priest is the “president of the assembly,” but not just said president. The Council documents never belittle the complete office of the priest.
Her ending paragraph is just an exercise in over-exaggeration. Her selective quoting of documents of Vatican II (ignoring everything that sounds too orthodox – e.g. “priests must instruct their people to offer to God the Father the Divine Victim in the Sacrifice of the Mass” PO 5) leads her to her conclusion that the Ordinary Form is “a community gathering and a fraternal meal.”
In this new Missal, then, the Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her perennial rule of belief (lex credendi), by which namely we are taught that the Sacrifice of the Cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass, which Christ the Lord instituted at the Last Supper and commanded the Apostles to do in his memory, are one and the same, differing only in the manner of offering, and that consequently the Mass is at once a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, of propitiation and satisfaction.
But she does bring it up later and calls it, essentially, lip-service. Perhaps the reason the Council documents paid great attention to the other dimensions of the Eucharist is because those other dimensions were suffering lack of attention. Her reference to it demonstrates her obvious bias towards the fake Catholicism which so many proffer but which is not found in the Church’s documents:
Everywhere the emphasis is on the Mass as a memorial of Christ’s Death, Resurrection and Ascension - the Paschal Mystery - which the people gather to celebrate as if salvation is guaranteed because God’s love is unconditional and His justice makes no demands.
That bolded statement does not help her argument because she’s repeating a blatant falsehood which the Church has never taught. She assumes it is the conclusion of the Council texts without explaining how she gets to that conclusion. She quotes three more paragraphs (5, 6, and 106) and then says “Which is all very puzzling.” How and why is it puzzling?
Now, it’s true the word “propitiatory” does not occur in the documents of Vatican II. But it does occur in the following post-Conciliar documents (apart from the GIRM, already quoted):
“We will [recall] the testimony offered by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who wrote the following memorable words for the neophytes whom he was instructing in the Christian faith: ‘After the spiritual sacrifice, the un-bloody act of worship, has been completed, we bend over this propitiatory offering and beg God…’” (1965, Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei 30)
“… we approach as a community the table of the Lord, in order to be nourished there, in a sacramental manner, by the fruits of the holy Sacrifice of propitiation.” (1980, Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae 4)
“The priest offers the holy Sacrifice in persona Christi; this means more than offering ‘in the name of’ or ‘in place of’ Christ. In persona means in specific sacramental identification with ‘the eternal High Priest’ who is the author and principal subject of this sacrifice of His, a sacrifice in which, in truth, nobody can take His place. Only He – only Christ – was able and is always able to be the true and effective ‘expiation for our sins and… for the sins of the whole world.’ Only His sacrifice – and no one else’s – was able and is able to have a ‘propitiatory power’ before God, the Trinity, and the transcendent holiness.” (Ibid. 8)
“Thus, by virtue of the consecration, the species of bread and wine re-present in a sacramental, unbloody manner the bloody propitiatory sacrifice offered by Him on the cross to His Father for the salvation of the world. Indeed, He alone, giving Himself as a propitiatory Victim in an act of supreme surrender and immolation, has reconciled humanity with the Father, solely through His sacrifice, ‘having cancelled the bond which stood against us.’” (Ibid. 9)
Moving on, she calls into question LG 10 and PO 5. She asks:
But how can priests be “sharers in a special way in Christ’s priesthood”? Does this mean that the laity and the ordained priesthood share in the one priesthood of Christ, albeit “each in its own proper way”? As Mediator Dei points out, the priesthood was instituted at the Last Supper. Am I right in thinking that this was achieved without the presence of the lay faithful?
I don’t understand the alarm in her questions. Priest are “sharers in a special way in Christ’s priesthood” because their participation in his priesthood is conferred through the graces of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The laity “participate, according to their condition, in the priesthood of Christ” by virtue of their baptism. (Pius XII, MD 88) This participation differs in degree and essence, as Vatican II reaffirmed. You can find this in Pius XI’s Miserentissimus Redemptor 9 and especially in Mediator Dei 80-104.
What does it matter that there were no “lay faithful” present at the Last Supper? She asks this as if every reader knows her conclusion. The priest is the “president of the assembly,” but not just said president. The Council documents never belittle the complete office of the priest.
Her ending paragraph is just an exercise in over-exaggeration. Her selective quoting of documents of Vatican II (ignoring everything that sounds too orthodox – e.g. “priests must instruct their people to offer to God the Father the Divine Victim in the Sacrifice of the Mass” PO 5) leads her to her conclusion that the Ordinary Form is “a community gathering and a fraternal meal.”
M
maurin
Guest
I thought that the Priest was an alter Christus?
conserve it, japhy! and let’s not forget to dress it up in fine vestments, maybe swing a censor around it so everyone’ll believe the emphases are the same.
conserve it, japhy! and let’s not forget to dress it up in fine vestments, maybe swing a censor around it so everyone’ll believe the emphases are the same.
L
Lisa44
Guest
The Letter asks the questions -
Given that the 20th century produced so many silver-tongued visionaries determined to sweep away the past and remake the world, could the liturgical renewal simply be another example of a big idea gone wrong? And could the current liturgical crisis actually stem from the Council itself which articulated the vision?
And -
what was the mindset that allowed this vision of liturgical renewal to take hold in the first place?
To summerize the questions,
Is the “liturgical renewal” a mistake?
Did the Second Vatican Council cause a liturgical crisis?
What was the mindset that embraced a “liturgical renewel”?
Does the Reply to the Letter answer any of these questions?
Given that the 20th century produced so many silver-tongued visionaries determined to sweep away the past and remake the world, could the liturgical renewal simply be another example of a big idea gone wrong? And could the current liturgical crisis actually stem from the Council itself which articulated the vision?
And -
what was the mindset that allowed this vision of liturgical renewal to take hold in the first place?
To summerize the questions,
Is the “liturgical renewal” a mistake?
Did the Second Vatican Council cause a liturgical crisis?
What was the mindset that embraced a “liturgical renewel”?
Does the Reply to the Letter answer any of these questions?
A
AJV
Guest
And…?
There are many things which may be legitimately raised against the Ordinary Form. There are even more when we move out of the theoretical plane and see the practical implementation in many parishes. But many of these “studies” so-called raise completely spurious objections. If Fr. Aidan did not respond, it was kind because the criticisms were of the completely spurious nature.
Let’s look at one of these objections:
First let us just take a look at PO and see what exactly it says about priests:
Doesn’t seem to be at odds with the teaching of the Catechism of Trent to me…
And now compare the supposedly ambiguous, altering passages of the Constitution on the Church with the teaching of Mediator Dei
Is this “each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ” therefore some new modernistic teaching? What relation does this have to the Last Supper and the ordination of the apostles? The problem is not with the teaching but with the understanding of theology.
What is even more depressing is that one does not establish this from theological principles but has to point to teachings before 1950 in order to shore up its legitimacy. It’s not an exercise in understanding any theology - it’s an exercise in parsing documents.
J
japhy
Guest
He is an alter Christus; who said he wasn’t? Not Vatican II…
Because he is in persona Christi capitis, it stands to reason logically that the faithful are gathered together in persona Christi (mystici) corporis – that is, the faithful are gathered together as the Church herself, which is why the Creed is “I believe” – and as the head presides over the body, so the priest presides over the assembled faithful at Mass (assuming there are faithful at Mass).
This is not the sort of comment that is fruitful in this discussion. I wonder, maurin, if you remember the civil conversations you and I have had in the past on this forum. Please return the kindness and continue in charity here.
J
japhy
Guest
Not in a Thomistic sense, no.
BUT, concerning: Is the “liturgical renewal” a mistake?
The reply does say that “we need to work on not only catechesis but also, in the fullness of time, a revision of the Offertory texts, the ceremonial of the Mass, and (not least) the position of the celebrant so as to re-activate the diminished but by no means extinguished feeling of the faithful for the sacramental identity of Calvary and the Eucharist of the Church.” Here he admits that elements of the liturgical renewal are faulty. (Anyone can tell that the Consilium whose task it was to implement Sacrosanctum Concilium failed in that regard in a number of areas – promotion of Latin and Gregorian chant are two major examples.)
(And it’s one thing – banal, to be sure – to call the priest the “presider” or the “president” as if that were his title, instead of “priest [celebrant]”. But it’s another to say that the priest presides, which he does.)
- Status