Replies

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.

"Your accusation that the definition of "sacrifice" has changed is unsupported by the magesterium."

My whole argument has been that every effort has been made to reassure the faithful that nothing has changed--which is your position--while at the same time changing everything. Of course the word "sacrifice" is frequently used by the New Church--how could it not? It may even couple the term with the word "expiation" in the New Catechism. But the new theology does not ascribe to these words the classical meanings formerly ascribed to them by the Catholic Church.

Here again is Cardinal Ratzinger: "[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."

Notice how the Cardinal's words oppose even the traditional Act of Contrition: O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee--" Notice how he denies our sins require an expiation by the Cross of Christ. He even denies the Mass is an act of immolation: "In what does sacrifice consist? Not in the destruction, but in the transformation of man." This surely was not the meaning of Trent.

The Cardinal is merely repeating the same new theology taught by many others which radically departs from past teachings. Here is another among many, Henry Pinard de la Boullaye: "Second enigma and second scandal: not only has the Eternal Father chosen His own Son to make expiation in our place, but faced with the most innocent and beloved of victims, the victim most capable of moving God in His compassion, He asks for compensation of the most humiliating and painful kind! --What harshness! What incomprehensible insensitivity! Let us say rather, gentlemen, what an abomominable way to interpret the thoughts of God! Nothing justifies it in the least." (Jesus Redempteur, pp.119-120.)

Nothing, that is, except the perennial teaching of the Church.

As for what the Pope says about the new Mass being traditional--that is simply a bizarrly wrong statement. Not even a pope can call something black, white, and still be correct. How can a Mass which has been acknowledged by the greatest of the world's liturgical experts as a radical break with the past, be considered in any way traditional? To say it is, is to play games with truth. Tradition is something handed-down, not something fabricated by an ad hoc committee. This is another wrong statement made by this very fallible Pope--and he has made many, believe me, this being yet another. It is certainly a fallible statement and wrong on the surface.