Posted on 09/20/2004 7:38:56 AM PDT by NYer
Taking a break from judging annulments earlier today, I visited a number of French traditionalist websites. I also had the opportunity, yesterday, to speak with a friend of mine who is a canonist from France following the situation as well as another friend who keeps tabs on the traditionalist movement in both the English and the French speaking world. Everyone agrees -- the situation has degenerated into total chaos, as nobody knows exactly what is going on with the highly-respected French SSPX clergy that have criticized what they see as the SSPX's growing rigidity.
It does appear that Rome has refused to take competency over the case, more-or-less stating that the SSPX denied Rome's jurisdiction over them when Lefebvre carried out a schismatic act through the 1988 episcopal consecrations. Beyond that, Rome refuses to comment other than to say, "Our door remains open for their return to full communion."
Beyond that, the rhetoric, polemic and accusations suggest that indeed civil war is breaking out among the laity and clergy within the SSPX's French District. In fact, two websites have now popped up that are exclusively devoted to tracing all the news stories associated with the crisis. What I find personally find interesting is that every news report, commentary, polemic, etc... mentions Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion from the SSPX around this time last year.
In the months that followed, it appears that the SSPX more-or-less tried to sweep Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion under the rug. But in so doing, even the regime currently in charge of the SSPX had to admit the important role played by Fr. Aulagnier in the founding of the SSPX. This is probably why the SSPX appeared to hope the issue would go away.
Yet it is also well-known that Fr. Aulagnier was a close friend of Fr. Laguerie as well as Fr. de Tanouarn -- two of the SSPX's leading priests. (As Fr. Laguerie's assistant, Fr. Henri appears to have just happened into the situation). It is also well-known that a number of French (and some American) SSPX priests were not happy with Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion. Therefore, I will venture to guess that the current SSPX chaos is the effect of Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion coming back to haunt Bishop Fellay. As for the particular details, this is the first time in almost fourteen years of being a traditionalist that I find the fog of war too thick to reasonably discern what is going on. (What I find even more troubling is that behind the scenes, under the flag of truce, other SSPX and traditionalist commentators with whom I am in contact have admitted to having the same problem.)
So if I can end on a personal note to the moderate SSPX clergy and their supporters who follow this blog, I'm more than happy to abide by the flag of truce and keep you guys in prayer while you fight whatever battles need to be fought, but I honestly cannot make heads-or-tails of what is happening. But like Rome has said, the door is open for you to return. I will pray that God gives you the necessary strength to walk through it.
Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin ... Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present--namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future--namely, eternal punishment. (St. Thomas, Summa theologiae, I q. 23 a. 3)
Christ had the power to make the blind see when he walked the earth. He still does. But like that blind man, he must fall at the feet of Christ, forsaking all else, risking all, and beg to be made whole.
Such restoration is given freely by God - but you must want it with all your heart and soul, for "it is awful to fall into the hands of a loving God".
Truer words were never spoken. Excellent insight thor.
YOu are right it is those who are the enemies of our sacred traditions which conservative and traditional Catholics should unite and fight against as we are in a spiritual battle against principalities and power we need to pray.
"The problem with that argument is that Paul VI and the Consilium both strenuously insisted that the sacrificial meaning of the Mass remained intact."
Not true. They did just the opposite, then backtracked and re-wrote the General Instructions to the New Mass, changing the Protestant emphasis into something more Catholic-sounding, sprinkling the norms here and there with words such as Propitiation and Sacrifice--but keeping the text of the liturgy itself intact and keeping the emphasis on the Meal aspect.
But as Ratzinger himself has admitted at Fontgombault, "the notion of the sacrifice of the Mass greatly lends itself to misunderstandings." And he admits further: "[Modern Man] can no long imagine that human fault can wound God, and still less that it would require an expiation equal to that which consititutes the cross of Christ." And he rejects the notion of a sacrifice which includes immolation of the Victim: "In what does sacrifice consist? Not in destruction, but in the transformation of man."
This is the theology of the Paschal Mystery which opposes the clear notion in Trent of a real sacrifice of immolation. Yet as Trent says: "He instituted a new Passover, Himself to be IMMOLATED under visible signs by the Church through the priests, in memory of His own passage from this world to the Father..."
The rejection of Trent explains the abhorrence of the old Mass by modernist liturgists. As Ratzinger has said: "A sizeable party of Catholic liturgists seems to have practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate...One can detect much the same position in the post-conciliar discussions on the priesthood." He refers also to those who repeat Luther’s view that it is, "the most appalling horror and a damnable impiety to speak of the sacrifice of the Mass".
He concludes: "It is only against this background of the effective denial of the authority of Trent, that the bitterness of the struggle against allowing the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal, after the liturgical reform, can be understood. The possibility of so celebrating constitutes the strongest, and thus (for them) the most intolerable contradiction of the opinion of those who believe that the faith in the Eucharist formulated by Trent has lost its value."
Then why were so many of the traditional offertory prayers retained? Remember, as you have pointed out, that the liturgical texts remained intact (since the doctrinal problems were mainly within the General Instruction). You simply can't get around the fact that the GIRM opens with a solid affirmation of Trent - of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of Transubstantiation. Nor can you get around the fact that the liturgy is clearly sacrificial.
Re: Ratzinger. For one thing, Ratzinger's theology at a private conference is not determinative of the meaning of the Missal. You are taking him out of context in any case - he ends the conference with:
Trent did not make a mistake, it leant for support on the solid foundation of the Tradition of the Church. It remains a trustworthy standard.
What do the opinions of a "sizeable party of Catholic liturgists" have to do with the meaning of the Pauline Missal?
How have the Offertory prayers been retained? What text do you refer to? The Offertory prayers have been eliminated. What you have in its place is an offering of gifts, works of human hands, etc. That is not an Offertory, it is the saying of grace before a meal, so to speak, little else.
"What do the opinions of a 'sizeable party of Catholic liturgists' have to do with the meaning of the Pauline Missal?"
Everything. They reflect the thinking of Bugnini's committee which shaped the New Mass. The New Mass, moreover, is incompatible with Trent. Hence the vitriol directed at the ancient Mass which, affirmed by Trent, is a living rebuke of Bugnini's fabrication.
1970 Missal Prayers Super oblata, with Commentary
Take a look at that link - you'll see a lot of the prayers super oblata in the Bugnini-produced Missal are taken directly from the Secrets in either the 1962 Missal or one of the other ancient western missals. In the Gregorian Sacramentary the ONLY offertory prayer was the Secret. The rest were all added later, after the eighth century. It follows, therefore, that the Secret/super oblata is all that is necessary to express the offertory idea.
What is the proof of that? Why does Ratzinger (one of the "progressives" during the Council), not reflect the thinking of the committee?
Ratzinger does reflect the committee. As I have noted, he does not believe that an actual immolation takes place. To him the sacrifice involves no destruction but celebrates man's transformation. For more on this cf: "Considerations on Cardinal Ratzinger's Fontgombault Conference" by Fr. Patrick De la Roche, The Angelus, April 2002.
The only Offertory prayer may have been the Secret at one time--but all else affirmed the propitiatory sacrifice. You can't isolate a part from the whole. What is grotesque about the Novus Ordo is just this sort of practice--pretending the Novus Ordo is no different from earlier Masses in its meaning. But this is not true. Here is the Novus Ordo prayer--the offering of the gifts:
"Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through Your goodness we have this bread to offer which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life."
Nothing about the spotless Victim about to be sacrificed for our sins. No Judica me psalm recited by the priest at the Introit to underscore our need for expiation. It's just, "Thanks, Lord for the bread. Thanks for the wine." Big deal. Nothing could be more banal, more prosaic. It's a mere blessing before a Meal--which is the whole point. The celebration is of a memorial meal in the Protestant fashion--and at a table, not an altar.
Fair enough. A misunderstanding it is.
Another repeat of all your usual and ineffectual rationalizations in favor of the dead archschismatic and his work.
Not only that but some close to him suggest that he may have bad breath, too! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
It bears repeating. You're pretty dense. It takes several applications of truth before anything sinks with pope-worshipers.
My, how witty. No wonder you've pinged your admirers.
* Every sane individual knows Lefevbre was calling the POpe an antiChrist.
thank you;informative post. God Bless
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.