Posted on 10/19/2006 5:57:34 PM PDT by monkapotamus
* I am not only quite conversant with Tradition in the Church as explicated by the Living Magisterium, I know the difference between Tradition and ecclesial traditions which can be, and have been in the past, totally abandoned.
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
*Sadly, your writings do not demonstrate a grasp of the truth about the Catholic Church's Teachings about Tradition.
*Because I manintain the Bonds of Unity with the Church which has Divinely-Constituted Authority to protect and decide what is and isn't Tradition, I have no need of self-professed "experts" telling me what is and isn't Tradtion. Jesus established His Church as the Ark of Salvation. A schism is not an Ark of Salvation. It is a highway to Hell
The priests and bishop of Campos, Brazil in 2001 reconciled with the Church without recanting or correction one single doctrinal view.
* I am unaware they taught as Fellay does. Are you aware Fellay teaches the Mass is Evil? Are you aware Fellay teaches Jews are cursed? Are you aware Fellay teaches Vatican Two taught heresy? Direct responses would be appreciated.
Pope Paul VI, nor any other Pope, has the right to suppress a rite of Mass that was the primary rite used (Roman) for 1,600 years in the Church. If Pope Paul VI thought he had the power to do so, this Pope, and immemorial custom, are showing differently.
* Again, you have not grasped the truth about ecclesial traditions. THe Pope does not need the approval of lefevbre, fellay or you to take decisions about the Mass. Please read what I posted above from Dom Cabrol.
* I could cite many other sources. However, I will cite a recent source.
Mediator Dei.
49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."
51. Several causes, really have been instrumental in the progress and development of the sacred liturgy during the long and glorious life of the Church.
52. Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ's people more readily.
53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.
54. Just as notable a contribution to this progressive transformation was made by devotional trends and practices not directly related to the sacred liturgy, which began to appear, by God's wonderful design, in later periods, and grew to be so popular. We may instance the spread and ever mounting ardor of devotion to the Blessed Eucharist, devotion to the most bitter passion of our Redeemer, devotion to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, to the Virgin Mother of God and to her most chaste spouse.
55. Other manifestations of piety have also played their circumstantial part in this same liturgical development. Among them may be cited the public pilgrimages to the tombs of the martyrs prompted by motives of devotion, the special periods of fasting instituted for the same reason, and lastly, in this gracious city of Rome, the penitential recitation of the litanies during the "station" processions, in which even the Sovereign Pontiff frequently joined.
56. It is likewise easy to understand that the progress of the fine arts, those of architecture, painting and music above all, has exerted considerable influence on the choice and disposition of the various external features of the sacred liturgy.
57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about - during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors - that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.[48] This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.[49]
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.
*Now, I know there are many supporters of the schism, both current and former, who are sedevacantist in practice. However, even they acknoiledge the author of Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII, was a legit Pope.
*If you disagree with Pope Pius XII please draft a Wanderer Column about your rejection of his teaching and submit it for publication.
You are mistaken. The SSPX will eventually reconcile once their excommunications are declared null and void, and YOU will become the Catholic dissenter.
*Moi? Nevah (said in my best Churchillian voice). I am quite prepared if this unlikely event happens. ( Can I get a witness, sitetest?) am docile and obedient towards the Living Magisterium. If such a reconciliation takes place, as you imagine it will, I will shut-up and acceptt the decision taken by the Living Magisterium for that is what it means to be Catholic.
*And y'all can joyfully shout "we told you so's and we won"" to the ends of the earth amd you still will not read me whining or complaining or opposing the Living Magisterium. That you think I would oppose the Living Magisterium because it took a decision opposed to my personal preferences says a ton about your idea of fidelity and obedience
And I thought that true ecumenism was your big soapbox issue. Here it is in spades.
*Ecumenism is distinct from the schism. Recall Vatican Two....
DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
CHAPTER I
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES ON ECUMENISM
... The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.
*Again, brother, you do not appear to have a firm grasp of Catholic Doctrine. Lefevbre and Fellay et all were accused of causing the sin of separation. Tha si why they were excommincated
Embrace ecumenism with traditionalists "borna"!
* Brother, please take time off for study and reflection about Tradition.
* I have illsutrated for you some areas of weakness you ought address becaause these are areas in which your wrings can/do lead others astray.
FWIW, your columns and the columns of sobran and buchanan are reasons I am quitting my subscription to the Wanderer. It is a source of disunity in Church and Country
I really did like him though. He is astand-up man who can take criticism and respond with a defense.
The talk ended lke this. He told me he appreciated my position and desire to stop my subscription with the pro-rated difference returned but he said he would continue to send me the paper for free.
I told him, "I can out-Christian you. I will not only take your paper with its malign influence, I will pay you for the anger it costs me."
We both laughed and hung-up as friends in near total disagreement.
Dear bornacatholic,
"(Can I get a witness, sitetest?)"
Certainly. Bornacatholic and I have discussed the possibilities of reconciliation privately on more than one occasion. We agree pretty much on most major aspects of these questions.
In light of all the false starts of recent year, I think that we're both not holding our breath until an SSPX reconciliation actually occurs. If it happens, it will happen when it happens. Neither of us are holding up our Christmas shopping in anticipation. Neither of us expects, if reconciliation occurs, that it will be "clean" (that the overwhelming majority - say, 90% - of SSPX bishops, priests, and regular Mass-goers) will follow. Myself, I think that 20% - 25%, or even a bit more, will break off and schism from the schism as the first schism is healed.
Furthermore, we do not believe that it will occur quite on the terms for which the SSPX leadership currently holds out. It may very well be that after the fact, the SSPX leadership will CLAIM that they got everything they wanted, but we rather have our doubts that this will accurately reflect reality.
However, ultimately, we are both docile, faithful Catholics, and have discussed many "what if" scenarios. Under each one, we have agreed that we are obligated to accept the authoritative actions of the Church in this regard, including the possible nullifications of excommunications and re-establishment of Catholicism within the SSPX by re-established full communion with Peter, without much further ado.
While questions remain unresolved, we are certainly entitled to our private opinions, but once Rome speaks, our own private opinions that run counter to the Church's judgment will be abandoned instantaneously.
sitetest
Spoken like a true Americanist. But thanks for the compliment. To be mentioned in the same breath as these two bastions of true Catholic thought in the midst of the Americanist "Catholic" madness is quite a tribute, but undeserved.
Apparently, you do not keep up with the the writings of Pope Benedict XVI, NOR the previous head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. All of your ruminations and private exegesis and picking and choosing of select sources does not an argument make.
The pope himself has said never before in the history of Catholicism has a rite of Mass (especially the Roman rite of 1600 years!!!) been suppressed. Never. He said the Pope is the SERVANT of Tradition, NOT its master.
Americanists everywhere we go. Don't let your jingoism interfere with your private interpretation of Catholicism.
I was learnt fidelity and obedience were virtues. Who knew they'd be reinterpreted to become a vice. It is very difficult to keep abreast of the changes within the schism opposing the Living Magisterium. In fact, the change is, well, revolutionary, isn't it? For many, no longer does Roma Locuta est, Causa finita est exist.
What's next----Fellay offering to cover for the pope during papal vacations????? I don't think B-XVI would agree.
"For many, no longer does Roma Locuta est, Causa finita est exist."
Nice snappy phrases you have. However, Rome has not spoken FINALLY on this issue obviously--nor on many issues actually. Otherwise, there would NEVER be a new need to issue new documents.
And BlackElk, regarding the "excommunicated," the "excommumications" within Ecclesia Dei Adflicta were supposed self imposed. They could be "material" and not "formal" and therefore, NOT valid. COULD be, I said. The new Code of Canon law (Ask Canon lawyers, NOT me!!!) with its emphasis on the subject rather than the object, makes it very difficult to declare anyone "excommunicated" except for the variety declared in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.
Yes, in 1988, they were disobedient to the request of Pope John Paul II. No, no other documents have been issued AUTHORITATIVELY yet to replace it. However, both Campos and the Institute of Good Shepherd priests were required to recant NONE of their doctrinal views in order to reconcile canonically. NONE. As far as I know, the SSPX's official position on doctrine contains no errors nor heresy. I would be interested for Bornacatholic to point me toward specific words Bishop Felly used that were allegedly "anti-Semitic" as he claims.
"Aren't those who are excommunicated unable to obtain spiritual benefits for others???? At least so long as they are excommunicated?"
No laymen who attend SSPX chapels have been declared to be excommunicated nor schismatic, at least by the Church. The Ecclesia Dei Commission has confirmed on numerous occasions that a Catholic can fulfill his Sunday obligation at SSPX chapels. The vast majority of those 1 million rosaries are from the traditionalist laymen.
Mershon: I generally admire your writings on FR and in the Wanderer but I have a hard time imagining that ecclesiastical "Americanism" is applicable as a charge against those who support the justice meted out by Pope John Paul the Great (with the apparently enthusiastic assistance of Cardinals Ratzinger and Gantin) against SSPX, its leaders and its adherents unless and until Pope Benedict XVI acts, as Vicar of Christ on Earth, to reverse, undo or modify that justice. We need more than the living chief schismatic Fellay's public opinion as to what Pope Benedict XVI will do in the future, according to Fellay, and more than the expressed opinions of clerical subordinates among the Vatican hired help before turning our backs on actual papal judgments. Just as Pope Benedict XVI has the authority to modify or end the punishment of the SSPX, so too did Pope Paul VI have the authority to institute the Novus Ordo (Quo Primum or no Quo Primum). I do not like the Novus Ordo nor have I ever liked it. It is a Mass, however, whatever Fellay may imagine. Pope Paul VI said so. For that matter, I did not like Pope Paul VI but he was pope and so, whether I liked him or not, his actions were those of the Vicar of Christ. I attend the authorized Tridentine Mass every Sunday with absolutely no thanks to SSPX, whatever it may please Fellay and company to fantasize.
Sitetest's last paragraph says it all. As a Catholic, I am quite entitled to rely on papal judgments (how is that Americanism???) Bishop John Ireland's problem was not in over-reliance on Rome but on crying for American religious exceptionalism because we were somehow different and better than mankind elsewhere. As Leo XIII rejected Ireland's notions, we know better. Of course, politics and our Faith are clean different things. I gladly favor American political institutions but would never apply their institutional arrangements within Holy Mother the Church. I will take Catholic Church moral guidance to influence my every political vote.
* LOL I am not sure what that is but it sure makes me sound guilty of something
But thanks for the compliment. To be mentioned in the same breath as these two bastions of true Catholic thought in the midst of the Americanist "Catholic" madness is quite a tribute, but undeserved.
*Again, I have no idea of what you are writing about. I am a Christian Catholic who maintains the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority. That makes me Catholic without any quotation marks. At least that is what The Living Magisterium Teaches.
Apparently, you do not keep up with the the writings of Pope Benedict XVI, NOR the previous head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
*Every day in my online mail account I get a link from the Vatican Information Service. How's about you? You can get it also. Sign-up is gratis at the Holy See website
All of your ruminations and private exegesis and picking and choosing of select sources does not an argument make.
*What I posted were apt sections of authentic and authoritative documents from the Living Magisterium and they are a direct refutation of your private judgement assertions concerning Tradition and the Mass and the Pope's authority. Your response is just a reflexive gainsaying of my Tradition Sourced post and it appears it is made from an imagined position of authority and your response references nothing authoritative or definitive.
The pope himself has said never before in the history of Catholicism has a rite of Mass (especially the Roman rite of 1600 years!!!) been suppressed. Never. He said the Pope is the SERVANT of Tradition, NOT its master.
*I have already posted the decision taken by Pope Paul VI in prolmugating the new missal. His authority was exercised in the very same way as Pope Saint Pius V exercised his authority when he promulagted the new missal back in the day. Pope Paul taught the reformed missal was an act of Tradition and a continuation of that Tradition. In other words he DID serve Tradition, although, admittedly, he did not serve what lefevbre thought Traditon was. But, then again, In Ecclesia Dei Johannes Paulus Magnus taught that lefevbre did not have a good grasp of Tradition. You have the very same problem it appears. Here is Johannes Paulus Magnus on that point....
The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.
*You appear to be making the rash, accusatory and scandalous accusation Pope Paul VI did not serve Tradition. Is that your position?
Americanists everywhere we go. Don't let your jingoism interfere with your private interpretation of Catholicism
*Americanist? jingoism? As I said, I have no idea what you mean by "Americanist" but it sounds lke something I would be delighted to be guilty of.
* Jingoism? What does that have to do with this thread? You amy as well call me fatty or insist I have cooties. You, nor anyone else, has ever seen me post anything suggesting I am a jingoist ( Can I get a witness, sitetest. )
* If you have some Document from the Living Magisterium teaching otherwise than what I posted, feel free to ping me with the info.
However, I do not accept you as an authority about Tradition. The Living Magisterium is the authority.
*That isn't my phrase. That is an axiom from tradition. Do you know its origins?
However, Rome has not spoken FINALLY on this issue obviously--
*And you know this because...
I know what it has said authoritatively re the schism. I follow that. When the Living Magisterium promulgates another decision I will folow that and not war against that decision. You appear to be claiming you can war against Rome if you think the final words has not been spoken. Is that your idea of what Tradition consists of?
Please read and review Ratzinger's The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian
Is Roma locuta est...that difficult an axiom to understand and follow for soi disant traditionalists?
I would be interested for Bornacatholic to point me toward specific words Bishop Felly used that were allegedly "anti-Semitic" as he claims.
*Apparently, you do not keep up with Fellay's heretical Doctrines about the Mass being evil, about the Ecumenical Council being hereical (how could it be heretical when lefevbrfe himself signed all the documents?) and the jews being cursed.
I will provide the info
We must attach to this refusal to respect the liturgical norms laid down a special grievousness in that it introduces division where Christ's love has gathered us together in unity, namely, into the liturgy and the eucharistic sacrifice. For our part, in the name of tradition, we beseech all of our children to celebrate the rites of the restored liturgy with dignity and fervent devotion. Use of the old Ordo Missae is in no way left to the choice of priests or people. The Instruction of 14 June 1971 provided the celebration of Mass according to the former rite would be permitted, by faculty from the Ordinary, only for aged or sick priests offering the sacrifice without a congregation. The new Ordo Missae was promulgated in place of the old after careful deliberation and to carry out the directives of Vatican Council II. For a like reason, our predecessor St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, commanded the use of the Roman Missal revised by his authority.
In virtue of the supreme authority granted to us by Jesus Christ we command the same ready obedience to the other laws, relating to liturgy, discipline, pastoral activity, made in these last years to put into effect the decrees of the Council. Any course of action seeking to stand in the way of the conciliar decrees can under no consideration be regarded as a work done for the advantage of the Church, since it in fact does the Church serious harm.
* ROMA LOCUTA EST, CAUSE FINITA EST
*But, that wasn't the response of those annointing themselves "traditionalists" was it? It was just the opposite. They declared war on Holy Mother Church in the name of "Tradition" And they STILL haven't stopped the war.
The priests who accept ordination at the hands of excommunicated bishops may well, by such acceptance, display adherence to the SSPX cult (can one imagine otherwise unless they formally break with SSPX as did the FSSP fathers?) and, if so, demonstrate that they too are excommunicated. We are not Donatist heretics who believe that the sinfulness of the priest vitiates somehow his actual power to say Mass or confect the Eucharist. According to the Vatican, the actual Faithful who attend SSPX Masses may also contribute modestly their share of the expenses. None of this suggests that the Vatican encourages contact with SSPX or its adherents.
Also, when we say the Act of Contrition as part of the Sacrament of Penance, we promise to "avoid the near occasion of sin." Suppose, arguendo, that there were an excommunicated cult of schismatics who effectively teach that the Holy Father need not be obeyed when he directly orders that certain priests not be consecrated as bishops, that the archbishop receiving those orders signs his written agreement to obey that order, that the archbishop in question then communicates with the four priests whom he was ordered NOT to consecrate as bishops, expressing his disagreement with the pope and saying that the Holy See and the Vatican bureaucracies are occupied by "antichrists," is it reasonable to assume that priests willingly associating with such a cult may well, in their preaching and spiritual advice, be that "near occasion of sin" which we promise to avoid every bit as much as we should avoid the confessional of a priest who advises that fornication, adultery, or other sins are nothing to worry about or to confess?
That someone is a layman ought to make it easier to avoid "adherence" to the SSPX cult: 1 sincere confession and penance and re-adherence to the actual Roman Catholic Church and future avoidance of the near occasion of sin and the adherence is cured.
That does not mean that being a layman is a complete defense against being an excommunicated schismatic for "adhering" to the SSPX cult. Ordination is NOT a necessary precondition to adherence to the cult in the sense that one participant in adultery having to be married is a necessary precondition distinguishing adultery from fornication.
The reference to excommunicated was as to one who was and, apparently, is surely excommunicated: the archschismatic du jour Fellay. What those individuals who are NOT excommunicated are doing by way of rosaries or other prayers on behalf of Benedict XVI has nothing whatever to do with the promises of the archschismatic. I pray for the intentions of the Holy Father with every rosary and on other occasions but, trust me, although I am sooooo traditionalist that I actually believe in and obey papal authority as well as attending Tridentine Mass every week, the archschismatic Fellay is in no position whatever to offer any benefit of this Traditionalist Catholic's prayers to or for anyone and he never will be in such a position even if he returns to Holy Mother the Church. Fellay is not a layman. He purported to offer 1 million rosaries of others.
Were the SSPX laity who "adhere" to the SSPX not declared schismatic and excommunicated by John Paul the Great in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta? I was not aware that John Paul the Great distinguished between clerical and lay adherents to the schism. Have you a source for that? [Not a bureaucrat's opinion but a papal opinion of John Paul the Great or of Benedict XVI].
In January, Cardinal Castrillon had incorrectly written that with some conditions I would accept Vatican II. Since I wanted him to know exactly what I think about the Council, I handed him Catholicism and Modernity, a booklet in French by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau in which he studies the Council and shows how the spirit of the Council is radically opposed to Catholicism. It is, we may say, a total demolition of the Council.
*More to follow, brother. Your ignorance about what the SSPX and Fellay Teaches is surprising. I thought everyone knew of his heresies
The Cardinal's position is evident from his interviews such as in 30 Days: "It'?s fine to celebrate either Mass, but please don't pit one against the other. Don't make use of one against the other." Well, the Society is definitely against the New Mass. We even say that it is "intrinsically evil." That's a delicate label that needs a little explanation. By this we mean that the New Mass in itself the New Mass as the New Mass, as it is written is evil, because as such you find in it the definition of evil. The definition of evil is "the privation of a due good." Something that should be in the New Mass is not there and that's evil. What is really Catholic has been taken out of the New Mass. The Catholic specification of the Mass has been taken away. Thats enough to say that it is evil.
Trent
Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema
Wow. That's quite a quote. Link?
Dear bornacatholic,
"* Jingoism? What does that have to do with this thread? You amy as well call me fatty or insist I have cooties. You, nor anyone else, has ever seen me post anything suggesting I am a jingoist ( Can I get a witness, sitetest. )"
* chuckle *
No. You're not a jingoist. You are a patriot. However, your patriotism appears to me to be that normal, moral love of country to which all Catholics are morally obligated.
sitetest
Card Ratzinger; "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.
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.