Replies

Your last post indicates to me you have no idea what's going on. Definitions matter. When you keep the word and change its meaning, you are changing the faith itself. There is a real and irreconcilable clash between classical theology of the preconciliar Church and the theology that informs the contemporary Church. They are not reconcilable, but are in opposition and incompatible.

The New Mass, for instance, introduces a new notion of the meaning of "sacrifice" based on the "theology of the Paschal Mystery". No less a theologian than Cardinal Ratzinger has rejected the concept that any sort of "immolation" takes place in such a sacrifice, stating that "a destruction does not honor God." (The Problem of Liturgical Reform, 103-104.) For him and the new theologians, sacrifice consists "not in the destruction, but in the transformation of man."

Classical theology rejects this interpretation since such a conception of sacrifice cannot account for Christ's act of expiation--which, no doubt, is why the entire dimension of expiation for sin, a primary dogma of the Catholic faith regarding the Mass, is left out of the Novus Ordo. Sin for the new theologians is only considered as it concerns ourselves, not as it relates to God. Reparation no longer means satisfaction of divine justice, but only our conversion. In other words, nothing is as it was--we are in the realm of a new belief-system, a new religious ideology--one that had already been condemned by the Council of Trent.

Cardinal Ratzinger has stated, "We can no longer imagine that human fault can wound God, and still less that it would require an expiation equal to that which constitutes the cross of Christ." Yet this is contrary to the classical doctrine of expiation--found even in the writings of St. Paul--and repeated over and over for twenty centuries, a doctrine which was signified by the old rite. Here is how the Council of Trent put it: "For, after He had celebrated the ancient feast of the Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel sacrificed [immolabat] in memory of their exodus from Egypt, He instituted a new Passover, Himself to be immolated [immolandum]under visible signs by the Church through the priests, in memory of His own passage from this world to the Father." (Denzinger, #1741.)

In classical theology the death of Christ was an immolation, an expiation for our sins, and the Mass itself was a true reenactment of His death on the Cross; but in the new theology no immolation takes place, there is no need for expiation, there is no reenactment of the Cross but a commemorative meal instead which celebrates our "transformation" or conversion from sin. These are real doctrinal differences that can't be sloughed off or wished away. They mean we are celebrating the Mass now, not as we had done for two thousand years, but in a new way, and are thereby affirming a new religion.

And, remember, I am only dealing here with only ONE of the many shifts in the meanings of traditional Catholic terms that have occurred over the past forty years. There are many other novelties never before taught that now have wide currency. The notion you present in your last post is therefore way off the mark. Even more is your further contention that the Church is a growing moral force. The opposite is true: its moral influence is in considerable decline--just check the daily newspapers. Notwithstanding this Pope's conservative moral theology on issues such as abortion--which you focus on but which I have never denied--he nevertheless subscribes to a modernist theology that is novel and irreconcilable with former Church teachings, supporting it and affirming it throughout his papacy. This has had a devastating affect on the postconciliar Church that will be felt for many generations to come.

Your last post indicates to me you have no idea what's going on.

I know that you are unfamiliar with the catechism, that refers to the sacrificial nature of the mass repeatedly and quotes Trent in explaining the expiation. The catechism calls it a sacrifice, the pope calls it a sacrifice, the council calls it a sacrifice. It's a sacrifice, the same sacrifice that was made once and for all and for two millenia. Your accusation that the definition of "sacrifice" has changed is unsupported by the magesterium.

The New Mass, for instance, introduces a new notion of the meaning of "sacrifice" based on the "theology of the Paschal Mystery".

So says you, so you say theologians say so. So what. The pope in his apostolic letter,Vicesimus quintus annus tells us, regarding the 1969 missal that , This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development(17); and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with “the ancient usage of the holy Fathers.”

When in doubt turn to the pope. But you insist on turning away from the Church and the pope the Holy Ghost chose to guide it. You'd rather spend your time pigeonholing theologians into your cage of error.

These are real doctrinal differences that can't be sloughed off or wished away.

No. No doctrinal differences.

I happened to be reading Ecclesia de Eucharistia and I was delighted to discover that the pope shares your exact concerns, even echoes precisely what you have expressed many times. Does that make the pope a traditionalist? Or does that make you a modernist?

Unfortunately, alongside these lights, there are also shadows. In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this? The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation. It is my hope that the present Encyclical Letter will effectively help to banish the dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice, so that the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery.