Posted on 07/21/2004 7:23:09 AM PDT by Mershon
Exclusive interview with His Excellency Bishop Fellay : "We are firm, but not unreachable." 19/7/2004
Summary : Last May, the "Latin Mass" Magazine published an interview of Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. The integral text of this interview is available in the Documents section. His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, was kind enough to answer the questions of DICI regarding the proposals made by the Cardinal in favor of Tradition in his interview.
DICI: In this interview for the Latin Mass magazine, Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos does more than just stretch out a hand to the faithful attached to Tradition, he affirms that the Holy Father holds his arms open. Aren’t you touched by such a generous offer? Bishop Fellay: I am very much touched by this gesture and do not doubt the generosity behind it. But I have to remark, at the same time, that the cardinal minimizes as much as he can the real difficulties which exist on both sides. On the side of the local bishops, he only wants to see "confusion" and "hesitations" to acknowledge the "right of citizenship" of the Tridentine Mass, whereas there is a real opposition to the traditional doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice. To be convinced of this, you merely have to look at the very reserved reactions of the bishops to the recent disciplinary document Redemptionis sacramentum. Apparently, nobody is interested in this call to order! There are neither abuses, nor liturgical scandals! And as for the faithful of Tradition, Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos only acknowledges that they have a specific "sensibility" and a "perception" all their own, whereas it is really a question of fidelity to the doctrine of the Church of all times. All these euphemisms indicate the diplomacy of the cardinal, but they do not succeed in hiding his embarrassment: how can he solve the painful situation of the Society of Saint Pius X without raising the doctrinal issues? Honestly, if it were only a matter of dissipating the "confusion" of the bishops and of acknowledging the legitimacy of the traditionalist "sensibility", I believe that the crisis would have been solved long ago. But what is at stake goes far beyond the realm of confusion and sensibility.
DICI: Aren’t you afraid of appearing mired in an attitude which is constantly critical and negative? Bishop Fellay: On the contrary, ever since the beginning of our conversations with Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos, we have been making positive proposals. But we must be sure, first of all, that the pillars holding up the bridge between Rome and us are sturdy. These pillars are doctrinal. We cannot be silent on this reality without the risk that – sooner or later – all our efforts for a solution will fail. The solution of the cardinal is to propose a practical agreement, minimizing fundamental differences as much as possible. Is it possible? Can cordial words stave off the hard blows of the crisis which shakes the Church? I do not think so.
DICI: So for you, it is doctrine, integral doctrine, or nothing? Doesn’t this position of "all or nothing" lack realism? Bishop Fellay: We are firm but not unreachable. Doubtless doctrine is fundamental, but we do think there are some preliminary stages to go through. That is the reason why, from the very beginning, we proposed two preliminary conditions to the Roman authorities. These conditions would make it possible to create an atmosphere of confidence which would be favorable to solving the problem of Ecône. These conditions are: the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication against the bishops of the Society and the acknowledgment of the right for every priest to celebrate the traditional Mass.
DICI: How do you see this withdrawal of the excommunication? Bishop Fellay: What has been done for the Orthodox could be done a fortiori for us. Rome lifted the excommunication against them without their changing anything in their attitude towards the Holy See. Could they not adopt the same measure toward us who have never been separated from Rome and have always acknowledge the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, as defined by Vatican Council I? Indeed, the four bishops consecrated in 1988 took the oath of fidelity to the Holy See, and ever since they have always professed their attachment to the Holy See and the Sovereign Pontiff. They took all kinds of dispositions in order to show that they had no intention of creating a parallel hierarchy. I recalled this again in my press conference in Rome on February 2nd. This withdrawal of the decree of excommunication would create a new atmosphere, indispensable for going any further. Among other things, it would enable the persecuted priests and faithful to see that their attachment to Tradition is no fault, but that it was motivated by all these grievous liturgical scandals which Redemptionis sacramentum very rightly points out without, however, considering their cause, which is undoubtedly the liturgical reform itself.
DICI: And you ask for this withdrawal unilaterally, without obliging yourself to grant anything in return? Bishop Fellay: If the decree of excommunication were withdrawn, the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X could go to Rome, just like the diocesan bishops for their ad limina visit. They would give an account of their apostolic work, and the Holy See could observe the development of the "experience of Tradition" which Archbishop Lefebvre always desired to make for the good of the Church and of souls. There would be no need of any further commitment. It would simply be a matter of giving an account, on the part of the Society, and of taking stock, on the part of Rome, of the development of the experience of Tradition.
DICI: Do you not feel that you have been heard at least as far as your second preliminary request is concerned, i.e. the acknowledgment of "the right of citizenship" of the Tridentine Mass? Bishop Fellay: I cannot help but approve the praiseworthy effort of Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos to rehabilitate the Mass, but there also, I can only see a certain embarrassment: a right of citizenship conceded by the Holy Father, is it a right or a concession? The difference is not slight. We do not want to be granted a specific status which would be the hallmark of some liturgical "specificity". We are asking for a right which has never been lost: the freedom of the Mass for everybody. Because what we are attached to is the common patrimony of the Roman Catholic Church.
DICI: Even if you are not opposed to a dialogue with Rome, you nevertheless give the impression of practicing a "wait and see" policy. Do you not think it is time to get out of this marginalized position and commit yourself now, as they invite you to, in order to be more fruitful in the very serious situation in which the Church finds itself? Bishop Fellay: The position of the Society is not wait and see, but rather ora et labora, pray and work! Our priests are working for the restoration of the reign of Our Lord daily, with the families, the schools, etc. These 450 priests are more than committed, they are overworked. Everywhere in the world, people are asking for them. We would need three times as many! What would really marginalize us would be a concession closing off Tradition in a kind of Indian reservation or enclave within the Church. In truth, it is our concern for fruitfulness at the service of the Church and of souls which obliges us to request a true liberty for Tradition. The present state of the Church and the world is too serious for us to convince Rome that with a mere traditional "sensibility" (one that is strictly monitored) we could truly fight against the "silent apostasy" denounced by John-Paul II in Ecclesia in Europa. It would be altogether dishonest. But the Roman authorities, if they want to, can give back to Tradition its "right of citizenship" everywhere and for everyone.
It wasn't "designed to deceive", ultima. The original version (especially the definition) was contrary to Catholic doctrine and inconsistent with Pope Paul's eucharistic theology as expounded in "Mysterium Fidei". Therefore he fixed it before promulgation.
It was certainly not Pope Paul's intention to Protestantize the Mass.
This can explain why Pope Paul VI signed texts that he had not read. He told Cardinal Journet that he had done this. Cardinal Journet was a deep thinker, Professor at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, and a great theologian. When Cardinal Journet saw the definition of the Mass in the instruction, which precedes the Novus Ordo, he said: "This definition of the Mass is unacceptable; I must go to Rome to see the Pope." He went and he said: “Holy Father you cannot allow this definition. It is heretical. You cannot leave your signature on a document like this." The Holy Father replied to him (Cardinal Journet did not tell me himself but he told one who repeated it to me): ”Well, to speak truthfully I did not read it. I signed it without reading it." Evidently, if Fr. Bugnini had such an influence on him it's quite possible. He must have said to the Holy Father: ”You can sign it". "But did you look it over carefully". ”Yes, you can go ahead and sign it." And he signed. (Msgr. Lefebvre, Conference at Montreal, Canada in 1982)
Your mistake is to equate the action of the Holy See with that of the entire Church. But the Holy See itself is no longer fully identified with the Church. I would refute your non-infallible citations thus:
1. "If, by any express judgment, or in enacting a law, she approved what is wrong or reproved what is right, the error would not merely be a disaster for the faithful, it would also be, in a way, opposed to the faith which approves every virtue and condemns all vices."(Melchior Cano, De Locis Theologicis, lib. V, cap. v, concl. 2)
Precisely. This is the nature of the Novus Ordo--and it HAS been such a disaster for the faithful. Who would argue otherwise? And it is opposed to the faith.
2. "The Sovereign Pontiff will never be deceived into commanding a vice such as usury, or forbidding a virtue such as restitution, since these things are good or bad in themselves; similarly, he will never be deceived into commanding anything contrary to salvation, such as the necessity of circumcision, or the observance of the Sabbath, or into forbidding anything necessary for salvation, such as Baptism or the Eucharist." (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, cap. v)
2. The operative word here is "deceived". The Pontiff was not tricked or deceived into his command. He did so willingly--and wrongly.
3. "... as for the laws proposed to the whole Church, such as those drawn up by a General Council or incorporated in the Corpus Juris, granting the general approbation they enjoy, it is difficult to admit that they contain even prudential error, so that they are not to be waived without some special permission." (John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 3, a. 3, no. 5; vol. VII, p. 311)
It may be difficult to admit--but it happened.
4. "After Suarez and Banez, John of St. Thomas adds that the Church can err as regards the circumstances, application and execution of the law, for example by issuing too many precepts and censures, and applying them too strictly. For, he says, all that seems rather to pertain to the prudence and surrounding modalities of the law than to its substance and morality. Cano thinks likewise.... However, when we are concerned with laws laid down for all Christians, it is only out of regard for these very learned men that their reservations are to be entertained: I should not dare to make them mine." (Billuart, De Regulis Fidei, dissert. 3, a. 5)
These gentlemen seem to agree with me. Even Billuart is less than certain.
5. "Since the Church is assisted in the task of leading men to eternal life, she will not mislead them by erring either about what has to be believed or about what has to be done: if, for example, the Gospel had contained a commandment to communicate always under two kinds, she would never have been able to ordain communion under one; and similarly, she cannot enjoin on her children any acts that clash with the natural law, anything that partakes for example of idolatry, lying, or injustice. Theologians are here unanimous..." (Cardinal Journet, Church of the Word Incarnate, vol. 1, VIII, II, 2, B, 1)
But, in fact, it has happened in the past when the Arian heresy had almost full sway in the institutional Church, except for a remnant few. Almost the entire Church was in denial of Christ's divinity--even at one time, the pope himself.
In the Novus Ordo we have a valid Mass insofar as Transubstantiation takes place; but it is an unCatholic Mass in opposition to Trent. You cannot insist a Mass is fully Catholic when it does specifically what has been prohibited by a major council of the Catholic Church and hides its own truth under a bushel. In this instance it is the Pope in direct opposition to a Church council--one that taught definitively and was infallible! Not that the sacred dogmas of the Real Presence and Propitiatory Sacrifice are not present--but they are there only for those who search for them, buried in a protestantizing context designed to ignore or subvert them in favor of an appeal to Protestants.
You continually post citations which prove my point. The first Instruction version more accurately described the missal text itself. The text never changed, only the General Instruction changed.
And I disagree that it was not Paul's intention to Protestantize the Mass. The whole point was to attract Protestants and to suppress or gloss-over the too-Catholic elements of the liturgy. This was why he appointed six Protestant advisors to the Committee--who rejected several versions until Bugnini finally came up with a text they could live with.
Either it's Catholic, and so valid, or unCatholic and therefore invalid.
On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament. (Leo XIII, "Apostolicae Curae")
You cannot insist a Mass is fully Catholic when it does specifically what has been prohibited by a major council
It does not.
hides its own truth under a bushel
I deny it. All you can bring to prove this is the shortened Offertory, as the Canons are all perfectly Catholic in their typical editions. Even EP II is superior to the third-century Roman ritual witnessed by St. Hippolytus.
But the shortened offertory is nevertheless longer than that in the Gregorian Sacramentary, which is accounted by all perfectly Catholic.
Originally the only Roman Offertory prayers were the secrets. The Gregorian Sacramentary contains only the rubric: "deinde offertorium, et dicitur oratio super oblata" (P.L. LXXVIII, 25). The Oratio super oblata is the Secret. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Offertory")
In contrast, in the 1970 Missal, there is to express the offertory idea the prayer super oblata, the prayer "In spiritu humilitatis", and the "Orate, fratres" and the response "Suscipiat Dominus". So, for the feast of Christ the King we would have:
In spiritu humilitatis et in animo contrito suscipiamur a te, Domine; et sic fiat sacrificium nostrum in conspectu tuo hodie, ut placeat tibi, Domine Deus.He may now incense the offerings and the altar. Afterwards the deacon or a minister incenses the priest and people.
Next the priest stands at the side of the altar and washes his hands, saying quietly:
Lava me, Domine, ab iniquitate mea, et a peccato meo munda me.
Standing at the center of the altar, facing the people, he extends and then joins his hands, saying:
Orate, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotem.
P. Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis ad laudem et gloriam nominis sui, ad utilitatem quoque nostram totius que Ecclesiae suae sanctae.
Hostiam tibi, Domine, humanae reconciliationis offerentes,
suppliciter deprecamur, ut ipse Filius tuus
cunctis gentibus unitatis et pacis dona concedat.P. Amen
Now this certainly expresses the offertory idea at least as well as in the Gregorian Sacramentary, and has the advantage that the prayer super oblata is heard by the people.
The 1970 Missal is incompatible with Protestant theology, excepting the Anglo-Catholics and any other groups that accept Catholic teaching on the Mass. The Latin text prepared by the Concilium is simply incapable of being understood in a Protestant manner. It is absurd to suppose that Protestants could accept a liturgical text using the Roman Canon and sacrificial prayers. Here, for instance, is one of the new compositions in the 1970MR (Super oblata for the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time):
Concede nobis, misericors Deus,
ut haec nostra oblatio tibi sit accepta,
et per ea nobis fons omnis benedictionis aperiatur.[Lit. trans.] Grant us, O merciful God,
that this our sacrificial offering might be acceptable, and, by means of it, may the fount of every blessing be opened for us.
Or, for instance, the prayer super oblata for the 24th Sunday in Ordinary Time, formerly in the 1962MR used for the 5th Sunday after Pentecost:
Propitiare, Domine, supplicationibus nostris,
et has oblationes famulorum tuorum benignus assume,
ut quod singuli ad honorem tui nominis obtulerunt,
cunctis proficiat ad salutem.[Lit. trans.] By our humble solemn prayers be thou appeased, O Lord,
and kindly accept these the sacrificial gifts of thy servants,
so that that which individuals raise up unto the honor of thy Name,
may for all people be profitable unto salvation.
It is impossible to suppose prayers like this were confirmed as acceptable by Protestants.
This is one of your more bizarre posts. The underlying theology of the New Mass is the Paschal Mystery--which, until the twentieth century had no special meaning to theologians. Suddenly it has emerged as the summit of all belief. This is why John Paul II states that "The Paschal Mystery is Christ at the summit of the revelation of the inscrutible mystery of God." (Dives in Misericordia, para. 9.)
But what is meant by the term--which had never been used in prior centuries? It is used in lieu of the old-fashioned term Redemption. As Aimon-Marie Roguet says, "What we call Paschal mystery, classic theology called the dogma of the Redemption. It is easy to see how Redemption and Paschal mystery coincide broadly speaking." (Roguet was a member of the Concilium devising the New Mass.)
But the two terms are not identical. The former implies propitiation and atonement--the latter does not. This in turn reflects the new theology on sin as not being an offense against the honor of God but involving only a failure of love. And since God's love endures despite our sin and lack of love for Him, his justice demands no satisfaction, no propitiatory sacrifice, no divine atonement. The whole doctrine of Christ's vicarious sacrifice is therefore gutted and rejected with the Novus Ordo. Instead, what is revealed in the Mass is God's love. Jesus is no longer a Redeemer, he is the means by which the Father's love is revealed.
All this is essentially Protestant, not Catholic. It undergirds the New Mass and supplants the doctrines defined by Trent, particularly that of Propitiatory Sacrifice, placing in its stead a Paschal memorial meal--just as Lutherans do in their Lord's Supper worship service. It explains why the overwhelming emphasis of the New Mass is one of praise and thanksgiving, rather than an awareness of sin and punishment and the need for Christ's intercession and the intercession of the saints as in the old Mass. It also explains why the eastern Orthodox liturgy is closer to the old Mass than to the Novus Ordo which it aknowledges as alien.
"Either it's Catholic, and so valid, or unCatholic and therefore invalid."
No. It has the essential elements for validity, but these are deliberately disguised and subverted. The subtext is Protestant, not Catholic.
An analogy would be the Orthodox liturgies. They are most certainly valid--but they are not truly Catholic.
That would certainly surprise St. Pius X, who told Russian Catholics that they were to keep to the Orthodox rites "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter". Byzantine Catholics use the same Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom used by the Orthodox.
You miss my point. Validity is a separate issue. In fact, doctrinally, the Orthodox liturgies are closer to the Catholic than the Novus Ordo. Paradoxically, the Novus Ordo is more Protestant than Catholic.
I mention this strange opposition between the Passover and sacrifice, because it represents the architectonic principle of a book recently published by the Society of St. Pius X, claiming that a dogmatic rupture exists between the new liturgy of Paul VI and the preceding catholic liturgical tradition. This rupture is seen precisely in the fact that everything is interpreted henceforth on the basis of the "paschal mystery," instead of the redeeming sacrifice of expiation of Christ; the category of the paschal mystery is said to be the heart of the liturgical reform, and it is precisely that which appears to be the proof of the rupture with the classical doctrine of the Church. It is clear that there are authors who lay themselves open to such a misunderstanding; but that it is a misunderstanding is completely evident for those who look more closely. In reality, the term "paschal mystery" clearly refers to the realities which took place in the days following Holy Thursday up until the morning of Easter Sunday: the Last Supper as the anticipation of the Cross, the drama of Golgotha and the Lord’s Resurrection. In the expression "paschal mystery" these happenings are seen synthetically as a single, united event, as "the work of Christ," as we heard the Council say at the beginning, which took place historically and at the same time transcends that precise point in time. As this event is, inwardly, an act of worship rendered to God, it could become divine worship, and in that way be present to all times. The paschal theology of the New Testament, upon which we have cast a quick glance, gives us to understand precisely this: the seemingly profane episode of the Crucifixion of Christ is a sacrifice of expiation, a saving act of the reconciling love of God made man. The theology of the Passover is a theology of the redemption, a liturgy of expiatory sacrifice. The Shepherd has become a Lamb. The vision of the lamb, which appears in the story of Isaac, the lamb which gets entangled in the undergrowth and ransoms the son, has become a reality; the Lord became a Lamb; He allows Himself to be bound and sacrificed, to deliver us. (Cardinal Ratzinger, Lecture at Fontgombault)
No. It has the essential elements for validity, but these are deliberately disguised and subverted. The subtext is Protestant, not Catholic.An analogy would be the Orthodox liturgies. They are most certainly valid--but they are not truly Catholic.
Since the Orthodox liturgies don't have a heretical "subtext", the analogy fails.
But in the case of the 1970 Roman Missal, the subtext is Catholic. The fact that the GIRM was not checked by Pope Paul before publication accounts for its serious doctrinal errors - which were corrected when he realized what he had signed. It is, however, known that he did watch over the actual text of the new rite (for instance, he insisted Fr. Bugnini put back the Roman Canon) - which accounts for its Catholic character.
You haven't responded to my point on the offertory, I note. You talk a lot about a "sacrifice of praise" - but the Roman Canon explicitly mentions this, as does the Roman Catechism which states "The Mass A Sacrifice Of Praise, Thanksgiving And Propitiation". The propitiatory nature of the Mass when Canons I, III, or IV are used is just as explicitly stated as it was in the Gregorian Sacramentary:
Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ. (Eucharistic Prayer III)
Father, we now celebrate this memorial of our redemption. We recall Christ's death, his descent among the dead, his resurrection, and his ascension to your right hand; and, looking forward to his coming in glory, we offer you his body and blood, the acceptable sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world. (Eucharistic Prayer IV)
You can talk all you want about how the Mass has a "Protestant" subtext, but the texts don't bear you out.
I'm not quoting, I'm paraphrasing. This is indeed the SSPX position which is my own precisely because it has been the Church's since time immemorial. As for Ratzinger's view, it was answered in an article that ran in The Angelus in April 2002. It was written by an SSPX priest, Patrick de la Roque, and zeroed-in on what Ratzinger admits is a problem liturgists have with the notion of sacrifice itself, arguing they have a "desire in one way or another to rediscover the concept of sacrifice," a significant admission unto itself.
Ratzinger goes on to say the following: "In what does sacrifice consist? Not in the destruction, but in the transformation of man." De la Roque argues such a concept is a totally new way of looking at the concept of sacrifice and is in direct opposition to Trent and the perennial teaching of the Church. When the Cardinal therefore states that "the seemingly profane episode of the Crucifixion of Christ is a sacrifice of expiation, a saving act of the reconciling love of God made man", he is in fact re-defining the meaning of expiation, ignoring the fact of our sinfulness, which the Church had always emphasized, and emphasizing instead the notion of God's love. And it does so by denying the fact of sacrifice as a "destruction", an "immolation". This is what is new--and in conflict with the old theology.
But Ratzinger ignores this when he states that sacrifice is not a destruction because "[We]can no longer imagine that human fault can wound God, and still less than it can require an expiation equal to that which constitutes the cross of Christ." But this denies even Scripture--Cf., for instance, the first letter to the Corinthians (1Cor.5:7) in which St. Paul writes about our sinfulness and Christ's sacrifice in expiation of this. This has been the testimony of the Fathers of the Church as well, of John Chrysostom and St. Augustine, for instance. And this is what is contrary to Trent:
"For, after He had celebrated the ancient feast of Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel sacrificed, in memory of their exodus from Egypt, He instituted a new Passover, Himself to be IMMOLATED under the visible signs by the Church through the priests, in memory of His own passage from this world to the Father." (Denzinger, 1741.)
You're quoting from Ratzinger's explanation of modern errors. This is the passage, which follows directly the one I've quoted already.
The paschal theology of the New Testament, upon which we have cast a quick glance, gives us to understand precisely this: the seemingly profane episode of the Crucifixion of Christ is a sacrifice of expiation, a saving act of the reconciling love of God made man. The theology of the Passover is a theology of the redemption, a liturgy of expiatory sacrifice. The Shepherd has become a Lamb. The vision of the lamb, which appears in the story of Isaac, the lamb which gets entangled in the undergrowth and ransoms the son, has become a reality; the Lord became a Lamb; He allows Himself to be bound and sacrificed, to deliver us.All this has become very foreign to contemporary thought. Reparation ("expiation") can perhaps mean something within the limits of human conflicts and the settling of guilt which holds sway among human beings, but its transposition to the relationship between God and man can not work. This, surely, is largely the result of the fact that our image of God has grown dim, has come close to deism. One can no longer imagine that human offences can wound God, and even less that they could necessitate an expiation such as that which constitutes the Cross of Christ. The same applies to vicarious substitution: we can hardly still imagine anything in that category – our image of man has become too individualistic for that. Thus the crisis of the liturgy has its basis in central ideas about man. In order to overcome it, it does not suffice to banalise the liturgy and transform it into a simple gathering at a fraternal meal. But how can we escape from these disorientations? How can we recover the meaning of this immense thing which is at the heart of the message of the Cross and of the Resurrection? In the final analysis, not through theories and scholarly reflections, but only through conversion, by a radical change of life. It is, however, possible to single out some things which open the way to this change of heart, and I would like to put forward some suggestions in that direction, in three stages.
Ratzinger then goes on to quote Augustine to explain the nature of sacrifice:
The first stage should be a preliminary question on the essential meaning of the word "sacrifice." People commonly consider sacrifice as the destruction of something precious in the eyes of man; in destroying it, man wants to consecrate this reality to God, to recognise His sovereignty. In fact, however, a destruction does not honour God. The slaughtering of animals or whatever else, can’t honour God. "If I am hungry, I will not tell you, because the world is mine and all it contains. Am I going to eat the flesh of bulls, shall I drink the blood of goats? Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, fulfil your vows to the Most High," says God to Israel in Psalm 50 (49); 12-14. What then does sacrifice consist of? Not in destruction, not in this or that thing, but in the transformation of man. In the fact that he becomes himself conformed to God. He becomes conformed to God when he becomes love. "That is why true sacrifice is every work which allows us to unite ourselves to God in a holy fellowship," as Augustine puts it.With this key from the New Testament, Augustine interprets the Old Testament sacrifices as symbols pointing to this sacrifice properly so called, and that is why, he says, worship had to be transformed, the symbol had to disappear in favour of the reality. "All the divine prescriptions of Scripture which concern the sacrifices of the tabernacle or of the temple, are figures which refer to the love of God and neighbour" (City of God X, 5). But Augustine also knows that love only becomes true when it leads a man to God, and thus directs him to his true end; it alone can likewise bring about unity of men among themselves. Therefore the concept of sacrifice refers to community, and the first definition which Augustine attempted, is broadened by the following statement: "The whole redeemed human community, that is to say the assembly and the community of the saints, is offered to God in sacrifice by the High Priest Who offered Himself" (Ibid X,6). And even more simply: "This sacrifice is ourselves," or again: "Such is the Christian sacrifice: the multitude – a single body in Christ" (Ibid X, 6).Sacrifice consists then, we shall say it once more, in a process of transformation, in the conformity of man to God, in His theiosis, as the Fathers would say. It consists, to express it in modern phraseology, in the abolition of difference – in the union between God and man, between God and creation: "God all in all" (1 Cor. 15; 28).
Here are the passages from Augustine's De Civitate Dei that he refers to (that is, bk. X, ch. 5-6):
And who is so foolish as to suppose that the things offered to God are needed by Him for some uses of His own? Divine Scripture in many places explodes this idea. Not to be wearisome, suffice it to quote this brief saying from a psalm: "I have said to the Lord, Thou art my God: for Thou needest not my goodness."(1) We must believe, then, that God has no need, not only of cattle, or any other earthly and material thing, but even of man's righteousness, and that whatever right worship is paid to God profits not Him, but man. For no man would say he did a benefit to a fountain by drinking, or to the light by seeing. And the fact that the ancient church offered animal sacrifices, which the people of God now-a-days read of without imitating, proves nothing else than this, that those sacrifices signified the things which we do for the purpose of drawing near to God, and inducing our neighbor to do the same. A sacrifice, therefore, is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice. Hence that penitent in the psalm, or it may be the Psalmist himself, entreating God to be merciful to his sins, says, "If Thou desiredst sacrifice, I would give it: Thou delightest not in whole burnt-offerings. The sacrifice of God is a broken heart: a heart contrite and humble God will not despise."(2) Observe how, in the very words in which he is expressing God's refusal of sacrifice, he shows that God requires sacrifice. He does not desire the sacrifice of a slaughtered beast, but He desires the sacrifice of a contrite heart. Thus, that sacrifice which he says God does not wish, is the symbol of the sacrifice which God does wish. God does not wish sacrifices in the sense in which foolish people think He wishes them, viz., to gratify His own pleasure. For if He had not wished that the sacrifices He requires, as, e.g., a heart Contrite and humbled by penitent sorrow, should be symbolized by those sacrifices which He was thought to desire because pleasant to Himself, the old law would never have enjoined their presentation; and they were destined to be merged when the fit opportunity arrived, in order that men might not suppose that the sacrifices themselves, rather than the things symbolized by them, were pleasing to God or acceptable in us. Hence, in another passage from another psalm, he says, "If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is mine and the fullness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?"(3) as if He should say, Supposing such things were necessary to me, I would never ask thee for what I have in my own hand. Then he goes on to mention what these signify: "Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows unto the Most High. And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shall glorify me."(4) So in another prophet: "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? Hath He showed thee, 0 man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"(5) In the words of this prophet, these two things are distinguished and set forth with sufficient explicitness, that God does not require these sacrifices for their own sakes, and that He does require the sacrifices which they symbolize. In the epistle entitled "To the Hebrews" it is said, "To do good and to communicate, forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased."(6) And. so, when it is written," I desire mercy rather than sacrifice,"(7) nothing else is meant than that one sacrifice is preferred to another; for that which in common speech is called sacrifice is only the symbol of the true sacrifice. Now mercy is the true sacrifice, and therefore it is said, as I have just quoted, "with such sacrifices God is well pleased." All the divine ordinances, therefore, which we read concerning the sacrifices in the service of the tabernacle or the temple, we are to refer to the love of God and our neighbor. For "on these two commandments," as it is written, "hang all the law and the prophets."(8)Thus a true sacrifice is every work which is done that we may be united to God in holy fellowship, and which has a reference to that supreme good and end in which alone we can be truly blessed.(9) And therefore even the mercy we show to men, if it is not shown for God's sake, is not a sacrifice. For, though made or offered by man, sacrifice is a divine thing, as those who called it sacrifice(1) meant to indicate. Thus man himself, consecrated in the name of God, and vowed to God, is a sacrifice in so far as he dies to the world that he may live to God. For this is a part of that mercy which each man shows to himself; as it is written, "Have merry on thy soul by pleasing God."(2) Our body, too, as a sacrifice when we chasten it by temperance, if we do so as we ought, for God's sake, that we may not yield our members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, but instruments of righteousness unto God.(3) Exhorting to this sacrifice, the apostle says, "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service."(4) If, then, the body, which, being inferior, the soul uses as a servant or instrument, is a sacrifice when it is used rightly, and with reference to God, how much more does the soul itself become a sacrifice when it offers itself to God, in order that, being inflamed by the fire of His love, it may receive of His beauty and become pleasing to Him, losing the shape of earthly desire, and being remoulded in the image of permanent loveliness? And this, indeed, the apostle subjoins, saying, "And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed in the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God."(5) Since, therefore, true sacrifices are works of mercy to ourselves or others, done with a reference to God, and since works of mercy have no other object than the relief of distress or the conferring of happiness, and since there is no happiness apart from that good of which it is said, "It is good for me to be very near to God,"(6) it follows that the whole redeemed city, that is to say, the congregation or community of the saints, is offered to God as our sacrifice through the great High Priest, who offered Himself to God in His passion for us, that we might be members of this glorious head, according to the form of a servant. For it was this form He offered, in this He was offered, because it is according to it He is Mediator, in this He is our Priest, in this the Sacrifice. Accordingly, when the apostle had exhorted us to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, our reasonable service, and not to be conformed to the world, but to be transformed in the renewing of our mind, that we might prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God, that is to say, the true sacrifice of ourselves, he says, "For I say, through the grace of God which is given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. For, as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another, having gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us."(7) This is the sacrifice of Christians: we, being many, are one body in Christ. And this also is the sacrifice which the Church continually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, in which she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to God.
And he is saying the same thing as Ratzinger - so it's Fr. de la Roque who is wrong. I note he doesn't even try to deal with the texts of Augustine in his reponse.
"Since the Orthodox liturgies don't have a heretical 'subtext', the analogy fails"
All analogies are imperfect. I meant to indicate that validity and Catholicism were not synonymous. In the case of the Orthodox liturgy, it is not heretical, but it is schismatical. In the case of the Novus Ordo, it is not schismatic, but it is heretical in its subtext.
I have not the original to work from as you do, but only isolated citations; but even in your transcript of the speech, Ratzinger is pointing to a kind of sacrifice which is not a destruction--but a supposed transformation. This is a new liturgical theology, for all that Ratzinger may cite Augustine. You are mirroring exactly what I have argued by the quotations you post. If the sacrifice is understood as a transformation and not an immolation, then it is not according to Trent.
As for Augustine, he is not talking here of the liturgical sacrifice of Jesus in the Eucharist. He is talking about the sacrifice of a contrite heart: "'The sacrifice of God is a broken heart: a heart contrite and humble God will not despise.'(2) Observe how, in the very words in which he is expressing God's refusal of sacrifice, he shows that God requires sacrifice. He does not desire the sacrifice of a slaughtered beast, but He desires the sacrifice of a contrite heart. Thus, that sacrifice which he says God does not wish, is the symbol of the sacrifice which God does wish."
This has nothing to do with the debt in honor we owe to God which the Son alone can pay. It has nothing to do, in other words, with Christ as Redeemer who pays the debt for our sinfulness. It is to look at sacrifice from the human perspective only--which is exactly why traditionalists complain about the orientation of the New Mass when they say it is all about us. But Trent has stated this is not how we should look at the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is a re-presentation of the Cross, not a celebration of our salvation due to the Resurrection. It is a propitiatory immolation, not merely a prayer of praise and thanksgiving.
Oriens Library: Theology of the Liturgy
I will respond later.
Okay - I do have a question - do we still have subdeacons? If not, does that mean I won't be seeing a Solemn High Mass but only a Missa Cantata?
The subdiaconate exists as a liturgical office in Tridentine Solemn Masses. It is no longer a separate order.
So you are implying that the FSSP & Christ the King Societies do not have the Sub-Diaconate (nor the SSPX for that matter)? That is interesting if it is true.
They might; I don't know. But the order was abolished in the GIRM in 1970.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.