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.
Ah yes. Intellectual discussion at its finest.
Schizzie vocab 101.
Some argue that one of the big deficiencies of the Pauline Rite Mass, is that it is only termed a communal meal, a memorial meal, and has done away or at least drastically reduced the emphasis on the Sacrifice of the Mass. This was supposedly done to appeal to Protestant observers, who supposedly helped to write the Mass.
Indeed the Mass is a memorial, but that is not a lessening of tradition or scripture. Jesus told his apostles "Do this as a memorial of Me". The term memorial (or "anamnesis" in the Greek) means that when the priest utters the words of consecration, he brings about or represents the same mystery which Christ brought about at the Last Supper on "the night before He suffered." The one sacrifice of the Cross is thus rendered present, though in an unbloody manner, and the divine Victim of the Cross is both offerer and offered in the Church's liturgical rite .(Whitehead, p. 78).
There were no doubt Protestant observers of the working sessions of the Commission. Protestants do not generally believe Christ can be made present; thus there can be no sacrifice. They only believe in the "priesthood of all believers," not a ministerial priesthood. Let us see whether Catholic doctrine was watered down in these areas. What did the Vatican II Church officially declare about the Mass in reference to Pauline Rite Mass?"
"Hence, the Mass, the Lord's Supper, is at the same time and inseparably: A sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said "do this in memory of me" (Lk. 22:19). a sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the People of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ. (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Eucharisticum Mysterium, #C1."
In the foreword to the General Instruction on the Roman Missal states:
The Sacrificial character of the Mass was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent in accordance with the universal tradition of the Church (Session 22, Sep. 17, 1562). The Second Vatican Council has enunciated this same teaching once again, and made this highly significant comment: "At the Last Supper our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross until he should come again;" (Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy #47).
This foreword describes the New Order of the Mass as a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation and satisfaction, thus affirming doctrines that Protestants specifically deny. The Pauline Mass affirms these things; it was not designed to please Protestants by compromising Catholic doctrine whatsoever (Whitehead, p. 80).
What about the charge of the Mass being Protestantized?
After all, there is more hymn singing, vernacular liturgy, a greater emphasis on the Scriptures, etc. The fact is that "the early church had some of the same things-hymn singing, vernacular liturgy, greater emphasis on the Scriptures- and that, finally, the fact that the Church has adopted these particular things today means that they are really compatible with Catholic worship." (Whitehead, 82).
One thing that must be noted of the input of Protestant observers at Vatican II. On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: "The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal." (Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649).
What is clear in the Pauline Rite Mass? It reflects the Eucharistic Sacrifice as a propitiatory work offered for the living and the dead; concerning the Transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ; concerning the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints; concerning prayer for the dead- are all points on which Protestants continue to disagree with the Catholic Church but all of which are explicitly present in the Pauline Rite Mass. (Whitehead, p.
85). For those who say the Mass is Protestantized, there is one question to ask?
Do you know of one Protestant church who celebrates the Pauline Rite liturgy and any of the 4 Eucharistic prayers? No, the proof is in the pudding. No Protestant services recognize any of these distinctly Catholic doctrines. Max Thurian, a Calvinist monk at the time, wrote the following in reference to Protestantism and the Pauline Rite Mass: "Recently a Protestant commission was given the task of revising the prayers of the Last Supper. It was proposed that they adopt the second Catholic Eucharistic Prayer (inspired by St. Hippolytus). That proposition was rejected, because the commission considered that the doctrine implied in that prayer did not correspond to the actual common faith of Protestants... the invocation of the Spirit on the bread and wine presupposed Transubstantiation." (Max Thurian, Quoted in La Croix (Paris), June 15, 1977.)
Notice that the second Eucharistic prayer was inspired by the ancient tradition of St. Hippolytus. Not only was there not a single non-Catholic who participated in the work of the post-conciliar Commission headed by Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna, there were no Protestants back in the 3rd Century, from which this Eucharistic prayer is based on. It is distinctively Catholic."
The Tridentine decree gave an impression that the sacrifice of bread and wine came during the offertory. (*Question. Would it be fair, or Christian, to charge Trent with deliberately misleading congregations about WHEN the sacrifice was constituted?) Actually there is only one sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ accomplished during the consecration of the elements. Many eminent liturgists even during the days of St. Pius V discussed a reform of the Roman Canon to eliminate a misunderstanding of the meaning of sacrifice. The Tridentine Mass could give an impression that the offering of bread and wine constituted the sacrifice of Christ when it said, for example "We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the Chalice of salvation." and "Receive O Holy father.. this immaculate host which I...offer Thee...,". This caused some to think that this is when the sacrifice of Christ took place. In actuality, the salvific sacrifice of Christ was on Calvary, and the sacrifice is perpetually renewed on the altar AT THE MOMENT OF CONSECRATION by a validly-ordained priest, and not before. The Council of Trent clearly teaches this (Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist) (Whitehead, 120).
The Pauline Rite Mass teaches clearly that the anamnesis, the prayer which follows the words of consecration "makes memory" of the death and resurrection by the priest offering his body and blood (made present by Transubstantiation ) to the Father.
The first Eucharistic prayer retains much of the Roman Canon. It is too long to recite here but it maintains the idea that it is sacrifice. The traditional Roman canon retains the place of preeminence among the four chief Eucharistic Prayers. For example, it includes: "Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in sacrifice.... We offer you this sacrifice of praise." These are similar to the Tridentine Mass.
Eucharistic Prayer II is substantially that of St. Hippolytus that goes back to the year 215 AD, and declares: "In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup."
If any objections are made to the above prayer, one is objecting to the most treasured, and ancient of Eucharistic prayers, (and by no means Protestant).
Eucharistic Prayer III says:
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 your self.
Eucharistic Prayer IV says:
We offer you his body and blood, THE ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICE which brings salvation to the whole world. (Whitehead, 120-121)
We thus see in the prayers that Pauline Rite Mass maintains completely Catholic orthodoxy-because it is a sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who is both Priest and Victim, and who offers Himself as a victim in propitiation for the living and dead.
You and Roche aren't getting what he was talking about. Ratzinger was explaining what a sacrifice is.
A sacrifice properly so called is something done for that honor which is properly due to God, in order to appease Him: and hence it is that Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): "A true sacrifice is every good work done in order that we may cling to God in holy fellowship, yet referred to that consummation of happiness wherein we can be truly blessed." But, as is added in the same place, "Christ offered Himself up for us in the Passion": and this voluntary enduring of the Passion was most acceptable to God, as coming from charity. (ST III q. 48 a. 3)
Ratzinger's whole point was that the value of sacrifice is from charity, and not from the destruction itself. "A true sacrifice is every good work done in order that we may cling to God in holy fellowship". Of course Ratzinger believes that an immolation (offering Christ to God) takes place:
Again it is clear that the Eucharist of the Church – to use Augustine’s term – is the sacramentum of the true sacrificium – the sacred sign in which that which is signified is produced.
You are wrong. The Holy See is an ambiguous place reference--"See" meaning "Seat"--and includes those bureaucrats who work directly for the papacy. The term is used just as people might use the term "White House" to refer generally to a President's administration. If someone were to say "the White House is full of traitors," for instance, that would not necessarily be tantamount to saying the President is a traitor. And, in fact, the letter you cite shows Lefebvre referring to men in the plural as Antichrists--those who hold very high offices in Rome.
You don't want to believe this because it doesn't fit in with your scurrilous caricature of the SSPX and of Archbishop Lefebvre. But, in fact, the Archbishop made it very clear he could not cross the line into sedevacantism, nor was he willing to charge the Pope with heresy, though after Assisi, he was sorely tempted--and even actively purged from his ranks those priests of the Society who would not acknowledge the legitimacy of John Paul II. So your point is absurd--especially in light of the fact that he urges--in the same letter you quote--that his followers never abandon the See of Peter.
A pope-worshiper is someone who puts the pope above the Catholic faith itself. In fact, the pope IS the faith to such individuals. I place you and Black Elk in this company. Nothing either of you has ever posted indicates you recognize any limit to what a pope may properly command. You hold that the Pope is lord over Catholic Tradition, rather than its servant. That is making of him a god, someone with the authority even to invent his own religion. This is why I say you worship him.
Please use cite references and use quotation marks when using materials not your own. Then explain what you are trying to suggest by citing these.
No, it is YOU who do not get what Ratzinger is saying. He denies an immolation takes place. There is no destruction of any Victim. The notion of sacrifice in the new Mass is not propitiatory in the sense given by Trent, which is not that the "value of sacrifice is from charity, and not from the destruction itself" as you state. This is not the meaning of Trent at all. Nor is it the meaning ascribed to the Cross by Scripture.
Ratzinger argues that modern man "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." But this redefinition of sacrifice flies in the face of traditional teaching--that the Mass is a re-presentation of Calvary, with Christ's immolation as the satisfaction given for our sins, the price, that is, which is paid to the Father vicariously by the Son. That is part of the deposit of faith.
*Applied politically, they'd be "The White House and the Legislative Branch being occupied by anti-Christs" could ONLY mean Bush was an antiChrist.
I know you don't see that obvious meaning. Sane men do.
I'm suggesting you have no idea what you are talking about.
* LOL Ratzinger isn't talking about the Mass. He is talking about "modern man."
What in the heck is wrong with you? You can't even understand simple english yet you rant and rave about the Pope and the Mass.
You should be embarassed.
"I'm suggesting you have no idea what you are talking about."
It's the other way around. I'm suggesting you use quotation marks when citing others. You have the bad habit of freely using the words of others as if they were your own without any kind of attribution.
No. Ratzinger was speaking at the Fontgombault conference which was exclusively dedicated to the Liturgy. He was addressing the problem of understanding the notion of sacrifice in the modern world as it specifically related to the Mass. You are the one apparently who needs to do a little reading on the subject. Do you even know about Fontgombault conference where he made the comment I cited? If not, I suggest you start doing a little research to understand the context of the remark I quoted.
"Applied politically, they'd be 'The White House and the Legislative Branch being occupied by anti-Christs' could ONLY mean Bush was an antiChrist."
Nonsense. It could refer as well to those who staff the White House and not Bush himself. The term "White House" simply means the Office of the President--where a lot of people work. It is a diplomatic term, deliberately ambiguous. When we say "The White House has stated such and such," it does not always mean that the President personally stated this. It COULD mean this, but it is deliberately unclear whether the President has said something, or merely someone on his staff. The reason this term is used instead of a more definite one is precisely to afford deniability regarding the President himself. That was my point by analogy about the term "Holy See"--purposely misconstrued by you to force your opinion that the Archbishop Lefebvre was specifically referring to the Pope. He was not. The evidence, in fact, is to the contrary as I have shown.
The problem is the words quoted have nothing to do with the Mass. Apparently, you are the only one incapable of seeing that.
LMAO
"The problem is the words quoted have nothing to do with the Mass. Apparently, you are the only one incapable of seeing that."
The context for the quote was a discussion of the notion of liturgical sacrifice--which is the essence of the Mass. To say the Cardinal's explanation had nothing to do with the Mass is therefore ridiculous on the surface--it was a liturgical conference, after all. Reread the quote. It deals with the concept of propitiation for sin--which is how Trent describes the Mass.
"Cardinal Ratzinger is quoted --EXCERPT is the name of the game! -- to support SSPX opinion about the Pauline Rite Mass."
This post is unreasonable. Now you object to excerpts. Would you have me cite Ratzinger's whole book on the liturgy, or his entire speech at the Fontgombault conference? Most informed people know he has been consistently one of the most outspoken critics of the Novus Ordo--even blaming it for the present crisis in the Church. It was he who wrote the introduction to Klaus Gamber's devastating critique on the New Mass as well.
Furthermore, while the Cardinal has been unreservedly negative about Bugnini's Mass--which he calls a "fabrication by a committee"--this in no way means that he is in total agreement with the SSPX--nor have I indicated anything at all like this. Just the opposite. If you followed the discussion on this thread, you would see I was arguing that his notion of "sacrifice" was not traditional by his own admission--that is, not propitiatory. This would not have been in agreement with the SSPX--nor was I suggesting it was.
In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
I noted only one question, I believe, and it concerned the Archbishop's attitude toward the Pope. Here it is in a nutshell, expressed after the shock of Assisi:
"Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying 'there is no more Pope,' but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate."
In fact he resisted the temptation to reject the Pope till the end and even expelled from the SSPX many priests who displayed sedevacantist sympathies. So it is ridiculous to claim he himself asserted this--though he was indeed sorely tempted, given the heterodox and bizarre behavior of John Paul, especially his hostility toward Catholic Tradition itself.
As for your point concerning Cardinal Ratzinger, of course he will claim that the propitiatory character of the Mass is present in the Novus Ordo despite its other deficiencies. But his is not the same understanding of Propitiation as Trent's or as the SSPX's--nor did I try to claim this. Reread my posts. For Ratzinger, there can be no actual destruction on the altar following the Consecration, which is why he insists there must be a redefinition of the concept of sacrifice. But Trent insists on this notion of destruction--another word for immolation--it is at the heart of Jesus' sacrifice:
"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..."
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.