Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: AnthonyPadua on April 02, 2023, 09:54:26 PM
-
What is the SSPX resistance? I'm new in regard to this but I've heard the term 'resistance' come up several times and am unsure on the actual details.
Can someone give me a rundown or is there another thread that explains this that I can read up on? Thanks.
-
What is the SSPX resistance? I'm new in regard to this but I've heard the term 'resistance' come up several times and am unsure on the actual details.
Can someone give me a rundown or is there another thread that explains this that I can read up on? Thanks.
Those sspxers and former sspxers who oppose their quest for a practical accord with modernist Rome:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NXkE_nCw7o4
-
Those sspxers and former sspxers who oppose their quest for a practical accord with modernist Rome:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NXkE_nCw7o4
Thanks. If you don't mind I have some questions. Does the resistance hold to invincible ignorance? Or strict 'in voto' BoD? I.E Do they deny EENS? And their thoughts on sedevacante?
-
What is the SSPX resistance?
I've been asking the same question going on a decade. I never have been quite certain whom the "Resistance" is resisting. Is it the sspx? Is it the Conciliar Church? Or is it, perhaps, a combination of the two?
-
Thanks. If you don't mind I have some questions. Does the resistance hold to invincible ignorance? Or strict 'in voto' BoD? I.E Do they deny EENS? And their thoughts on sedevacante?
2 dislikes for asking questions? Yikes.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWJ_hF6vFx8
Sean is wrong. It is those people who left the SSPX. Because Sean still goes to the SSPX he is compromised and can't give a proper answer.
The resistance is resisting the Conciliar church.
But we shouldn't be defined by what we are not. But rather what we are, namely the true Christian remnant.
BOD has been written about by theologians already before VII. Follow that.
Non dogmatic sedes are welcome in our circles, but most of us are not sedes. Our Bishops are not sedes.
-
What is the SSPX resistance? I'm new in regard to this but I've heard the term 'resistance' come up several times and am unsure on the actual details.
Can someone give me a rundown or is there another thread that explains this that I can read up on? Thanks.
Here are some recourses for you: SSPX - Resistance (ca-rc.com)
(https://ca-rc.com/articles/on-sspx-resistance)Can we Accept? - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us)
(https://dominicansavrille.us/can-we-accept/)
-
BOD has been written about by theologians already before VII. Follow that.
Many things were "written about" by theologians before V2, a lot of them Modernist. Theologians were also writing about the Big Bang and evolution and undermining Sacred Scripture, etc. ... long before Vatican II. Do you think that the Conciliar Church just suddenly defected on one sunny morning in 1963 at 9:53 AM and 23 seconds?
-
2 dislikes for asking questions? Yikes.
Dislikes were undoubtedly for your references to EENS. Many Trads don't like EENS and do their best to explain it away. I find it quite ironic, since the Ecclesiology that results from BoD-driven EENS-denial is the FUNDAMENTAL and ROOT error in Vatican II and is behind all the V2 errors. Rahner admitted this and was dismayed that the conservative Fathers at V2 didn't make a peep about it. That's because the anti-EENS attach and brainwashing operation had been in full force for centuries and had already done its damage.
-
Many Resistance members are/were resisting the changes in the SSPX starting in the mid 2000's and culminating with the acceptance of Novus Ordo ordinations into the SSPX priesthood and the slow acceptance of the conciliar church within the society itself. Potential invalid ordinations were the last straw.
-
Many Resistance members are/were resisting the changes in the SSPX starting in the mid 2000's and culminating with the acceptance of Novus Ordo ordinations into the SSPX priesthood and the slow acceptance of the conciliar church within the society itself. Potential invalid ordinations were the last straw.
Don't forget the most important:
1. The SSPX is fundamentally and foremost a "Priestly Society of common life without vows". It was formed NOT to offer a network of chapels to the Traditional movement, but rather to form priests in the traditional, pre-Vatican II way with St. Thomas Aquinas philosophy & theology, traditional spiritual formation, no TV, no Freud, inoculated against Modernism, etc. THAT was what the SSPX started out as. Of course, when the world started needing the Traditional Mass and the SSPX had all these well formed priests, well -- the nationwide "chain" of Traditional Mass centers with the SSPX "brand" was born.
I know I'm being a bit facetious, but the SSPX "brand" and its well-organized network of chapels was a good thing. Yes, they were almost too business-like at times, but they were usually very fair. (Less people = Mass less often). How else can you be impartial to all the thousands of Catholics clamoring for a weekly Tridentine Mass? But whoever your SSPX priest was, you knew what you were getting. You knew who ordained your priest (a certainly-valid, +Lefebvre-line bishop), you knew how he was formed, what knowledge he had, and that he had passed a certain baseline. And all those downsides to Independent chapels (up to and including "Is my priest a complete fraud/layman?" were completely put down and removed. It was honestly great while it lasted.
2. My point: the SSPX has always been about preserving the Catholic priesthood by forming priests in the traditional way. The Mass, and taking care of the Catholic Faithful, was always secondary. Of course the Mass and the Priesthood are intimately bound up together -- but I digress.
3. It is a fact that the SSPX has already changed their formation process, in significant ways. Teaching that we need to be subservient to the Modernist usurpers in Rome, failing to teach what the Traditional Movement (and by extension, +Archbishop Lefebvre) is all about, including its many justifications, totally re-prioritizing virtues like obedience and disinterestedness out of their proper place, and teaching Theology in English rather than Latin. They no longer form seminarians with a "we're at war" attitude. Quite the contrary. When you form soldiers (or priests) during a time of war, that war's existence should be front-and-center and help focus your efforts. It should certainly enter in to the formation process. But the new SSPX is about surrender and reconciliation, even though the life-and-death war between Catholicism and Modernism continues fiercer than ever.
This one "change" in the SSPX is a game-changer, a deal-breaker, and enough for me to abandon the SSPX. As the modern saying goes, "YOU HAD ONE JOB". The SSPX had ONE JOB: the formation of Trad priests in the pre-V2 manner. They have already ceased to do that. What good are they now? All they have now is some residual good -- a train doesn't stop on a dime -- which will decrease every year until it becomes 0.
-
This one "change" in the SSPX is a game-changer, a deal-breaker, and enough for me to abandon the SSPX. As the modern saying goes, "YOU HAD ONE JOB". The SSPX had ONE JOB: the formation of Trad priests in the pre-V2 manner. They have already ceased to do that. What good are they now? All they have now is some residual good -- a train doesn't stop on a dime -- which will decrease every year until it becomes 0.
Well put.
-
Please take the EENS discussion to the proper subforum. Thank you.
-
One might argue that the "Resistance" is not resisting sspx. Why? Because the putative leader, Bp Williamson himself, has written recently that sspx has done a good work, and is still doing it.
-
One might argue that the "Resistance" is not resisting sspx. Why? Because the putative leader, Bp Williamson himself, has written recently that sspx has done a good work, and is still doing it.
I have no less than 3 problems with your statements.
1. Bp. Williamson would be the FIRST to say that any of us could fall at any time. +W was fond of quoting Our Lord "God could raise up children to Abraham from these stones." He gave the warning that the SSPX could fall, years beforehand. The Resistance *has to* be larger than any man, even Bp. Williamson. What if he went Judas on us? Would that be the end of the Traditional Movement (or at least its sanest, non-Sedevacantist, branch)?
2. Related to #1, Bp. Williamson is not the Resistance itself, nor is he its spokesman. He is the oldest of the bishops, and probably the least active in terms of dealing with the Faithful i.e., the most retired of the 4 Resistance bishops.
3. You make the same mistake as many Pfeifferites, namely: mixing up one opinion, especially an exaggerated/simplified version of someone's opinion, and then taking it and pretending it's a dogma that +W is pushing "My way or the highway!". EVEN IF +W taught plainly and simply that the SSPX was doing great, he certainly isn't requiring *anyone* to hold to that personal opinion. No one in the Resistance is required to place their right hand on the entire stack of "Eleison Comments" and promise before God to uphold and teach everything contained in these papers. But that is *precisely* what Pfeifferites and others act like.
In other words, that ONE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION of a quote or writing(s) is far from a dogma that +W pushes on all and sundry.
Personally, I think it easily reconciles with reality/the truth, namely: the SSPX is still doing much good today, like a train that has lost 1/2 its workers and been mortally damaged. But a train doesn't stop on a dime. The train is doomed, yes. But it will be going forward on inertia for some time. Is there any evidence +W has gone beyond this true statement?
The same thing happened after Vatican II. This isn't rocket science. Any older Catholics should instantly know what I'm talking about. Why would an organization adopting Modernism result in 100% of its priests becoming Modernist overnight? Spoiler alert: It wouldn't. As a matter of fact, those priests who want nothing to do with Modernism will have to die or be ejected before they'll ever be changed by the New Ways. They'll have to die out.
-
One might argue that the "Resistance" is not resisting sspx. Why? Because the putative leader, Bp Williamson himself, has written recently that sspx has done a good work, and is still doing it.
"Resistance" is an interesting term. Would Bishop Williamson have left SSPX on his own to resist the new orientation? We know that quite a few priests did, and they rallied around Bishop Williamson, for the most part? Within SSPX, there are some priests who are resisting the new trends, and all 3 Bishops other than +Fellay objected to the latter's approach to Rome.
So I think "Resistance" originally meant a Resistance against the neo-SSPX orientation, but as neo-SSPX "resists" the Conciliar Church less and less, but is coming to terms with it, it's also becomin a "Resistance" against the Conciliar Church.
So, how abou this?
The Resistance is resiting the non-resistance of the SSPX against the Conciliar Church. :laugh1:
-
The Resistance is also nothing more or less than the continuation of the old SSPX position, which dates back to the very beginning of the Crisis in the Church (and hence, is legitimate).
What we must have primary loyalty to, is the Catholic Church. Well, the Catholic Church was undermined and taken over by Freemasons in the 1960's. So enter "The Traditional Movement".
So for Catholics living in 1970 - present, our first loyalty must not just be to "The Catholic Church" but specifically the Traditional Movement. We reject all errors including Modernism, but also the various errors contained in dogmatic Home Aloneism ("the Traditional movement isn't legit", "You can't just set up chapels without permission", "we must avoid the Conciliar Church BUT ALSO all so-called Traditional chapels", etc.)
If we are to love the Church, we must love the Church in our own age. We must love the Liturgy, the Mass. We can't reject our only options for experiencing that Mass in our own age. Keep in mind this Crisis has persisted 52 years and counting. The dogmatic Home Aloners have basically been proven wrong -- proven to be foolish and stupid in their opinion to reject the Traditional Movement and "wait it out" -- wait for God to end the world or whatever. Even if THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN RIGHT in the beginning, the last 52 years of history -- hindsight -- proves them to have been wrong *all along*.
In my opinion, such dogmatic Home Aloneism is *more* dangerous for one's soul/salvation/family than "doing one's best" in the Conciliar Church. Just for starters, there have been Indult options for decades now, which takes the evils of the Novus Ordo Missae out of the equation. Everyone knows my opposition and problems with the Indult -- but I must say, it's far superior to dogmatic Home Aloneism.
I am a firm believer that the Catholic Faith is "a habit of life".
I also believe that the SSPX was the most popular Trad Movement option for so many Catholics for various *good* reasons, not base ones. Yes, more people prefer the Broad Path to the Straight and Narrow Path. But the majority of people also prefer water to urine, as a beverage. So the majority is NOT automatically wrong.
As I've said before, if you take 100 men who have given their lives to follow Christ (arranged their lives, homes, career where they can be practicing Trad Catholics), who fear God, put Christ first, and have already to-date made thousands of sacrifices -- if you take polls among those 100 men, you better believe I'm going to pay attention to the will of the majority! Because not all majorities are created equal. Heck, the Catholic Church Herself goes by majority vote on who should become Pope. But it's the majority of CARDINALS, who have presumably given their lives for Christ.
+ABL had his priorities straight: resistance to Modernism, formation of true priests. Everything else happened by God's will after that (setting up a professional network of chapels, etc.) That was all a testament to +ABL's prudence and wisdom in how he set up his organization, his Rule. But also: +ABL didn't go one step further than he needed to, i.e., demanding everyone adhere to this or that opinion on the Pope, the Crisis, etc. Which is proven by the fact that even as recently as 2015, plenty of sedevacantists attended SSPX chapels.
-
Another significant change that I do not hear about within this forum, is that ++Lefebvre did not require the SSPX members to make a perpetual vow. His reasoning was something about locking in individuals that might be be better aligned to a specific religious order. However, now the SSPX demands that all seminarians ordained to sub-deacon make their perpetual vows.
When I asked a rather SSPX priest regarding this requirement, response was the "requiring perpetual vows was necessary because the "crisis" in the church was not expected to carry on for so long".
http://archives.sspx.org/Vocations/sspx_vocational_information.htm
The priesthood in the SSPX
The seminarians and priests, after a year of spirituality, publicly pronounce their commitment on December 8, each year, and after 10 years of temporary membership may ask to make their final commitment.
-
Thanks for all the answers everyone, it really broadened my vision. One last thing, is the 1962 missal 'bad'? I'm not too familiar with anything older or why some people don't like it.
-
Thanks for all the answers everyone, it really broadened my vision. One last thing, is the 1962 missal 'bad'? I'm not too familiar with anything older or why some people don't like it.
Yes, it's bad.
Why? Because it represents Bugnini's masonic prototype for de-sacralizing the Tridentine Mass by butchering the liturgy of the Church's most Holy Week. What was left of the traditional Church did not resist it.
Which contributed to the eventual substitution of the Tridentine Mass with the Novus ordo missae.
The 1962 Missal represents part of newChurch's "slow-boil" conspiracy, as endorsed by the jєω-pope, Paul VI.
Therefore, +ABL, the neo-SSPX and the "resistance" Bishop Williamson were, and remain wrong in embracing and promoting the 1962 Missal.
-
There are multiple versions of the 1962 missal, so it depends which one you're talking about. If you're talking about the original edition, this one did NOT add St Joseph to the canon. I'm not sure if it deleted the 2nd confiteor prayer but most Trad priests add that back in anyways.
The Holy Week changes are also lumped into this discussion but those were in use before 62, and only affect 3 days, but not the actual mass for the rest of the year. The big change of the 62 missal is to the calendar. Many vigils were deleted but also the calendar feast days were simplified. The changes to the calendar are not uber-liberal, even if they aren't Traditional.
Fr Wathen said that he saw no major issues with the 62 missal (assuming you don't add St Joseph to the canon and you add back the 2nd confiteor). He said it wasn't the best but there was no danger to one's Faith. In other words, there are bigger fish to fry.
-
Fr Wathen said that he saw no major issues with the 62 missal (assuming you don't add St Joseph to the canon and you add back the 2nd confiteor). He said it wasn't the best but there was no danger to one's Faith. In other words, there are bigger fish to fry.
I agree with Fr. Wathen on this point. I think this is a very sane, balanced take on the '62. It's not that big of a deal. CERTAINLY not a danger to one's Faith. In other words, if your only option for Mass is said with the '62 Missale, and you stay "home alone" for this dumb reason -- good luck at your Judgment.
It's akin to avoiding Sunday Mass because the priest has bad breath, or is the "wrong" race according to you. NOT a good enough reason!
-
I agree with Fr. Wathen on this point. I think this is a very sane, balanced take on the '62. It's not that big of a deal. CERTAINLY not a danger to one's Faith. In other words, if your only option for Mass is said with the '62 Missale, and you stay "home alone" for this dumb reason -- good luck at your Judgment.
It's akin to avoiding Sunday Mass because the priest has bad breath, or is the "wrong" race according to you. NOT a good enough reason!
I think that almost everyone to a person on this board disagrees with Traditio's characterization of the 1962 Missal as "Half Novus Ordo".
-
By the grace of God I was "resisting" long before there was a "Resistance." I made the Novus Ordo to Traditional jump in 1990. But thankfully I have had good priests, friends, and books along the way. Fr Wathen wrote The Great Sacrilege before the founding of the "Resistance," before the SSPX even (at least he began writing the book before the founding of the SSPX). There were only a few priests and laymen who sensed the liberal carnage prior to 1970, or even prior to Vat II.
-
I think that almost everyone to a person on this board disagrees with Traditio's characterization of the 1962 Missal as "Half Novus Ordo".
With all due respect to the priest who claims that, his assertion is asinine ("of or pertaining to a donkey"). It is an insult to anyone who has been spiritually harmed by the Novus Ordo. It downplays the evil of the Novus Ordo.
-
Therefore, +ABL, the neo-SSPX and the "resistance" Bishop Williamson were, and remain wrong in embracing and promoting the 1962 Missal.
And yet, these men (including the largest Trad organization ever, the SSPX) have done more good for the Catholic Church and for souls in a few hours' time than you will accomplish in your lifetime. So there's that.
It's easy to talk smack. At least when priests/bishops duke it out in public you have two men who have given their lives for Christ disagreeing about a disputed matter. It really slays me, though, when armchair theologian laymen presume to judge men who have given their *all* for the cause of Jesus Christ and the salvation of souls.
I'm sorry, but even if you were a member of a Third Order you'd still fall far short of the complete donation of self that being a priest entails.
These priests have voted with their LIVES. In the game of life, they went ALL-IN. Let's at least acknowledge that fact. Could they be wrong, and you right, about this one issue? Maybe. But they earned the right to choose which Missale to use, which organization/bishop should be trusted, etc.
These priests need more guts to go out in public for 2 hours (dressed in full clerical garb as they are) than most of us are required to have over a months' time. These men witness to the Faith 24/7. And not just in nice conservative or Catholic parts of the country. Places like New York. And in all times, too, such as the early 2000's when the "clerical abuse scandals" were front-and-center in the media cycle.
So you'll excuse me for trusting these bishops and priests, whose biographies read like the lives of saintly missionary priests of old, rather than the opinion of some rando on an Internet forum.
-
With all due respect to the priest who claims that, his assertion is asinine ("of or pertaining to a donkey"). It is an insult to anyone who has been spiritually harmed by the Novus Ordo. It downplays the evil of the Novus Ordo.
He's also mathematically challenged. I think that it's probably .01% Novus Ordo at best if you do the math around 2 words out of however many there are in the Mass.
-
Yes, it's bad.
Why? Because it represents Bugnini's masonic prototype for de-sacralizing the Tridentine Mass by butchering the liturgy of the Church's most Holy Week. What was left of the traditional Church did not resist it.
Which contributed to the eventual substitution of the Tridentine Mass with the Novus ordo missae.
The 1962 Missal represents part of newChurch's "slow-boil" conspiracy, as endorsed by the jєω-pope, Paul VI.
Therefore, +ABL, the neo-SSPX and the "resistance" Bishop Williamson were, and remain wrong in embracing and promoting the 1962 Missal.
This is hysterical baloney!!
-
Many Resistance members are/were resisting the changes in the SSPX starting in the mid 2000's and culminating with the acceptance of Novus Ordo ordinations into the SSPX priesthood and the slow acceptance of the conciliar church within the society itself. Potential invalid ordinations were the last straw.
This was one of the reasons "The Nine" wrote their letter to ABL in 1983. They saw some of the same issues/concerns mentioned in this thread at that time. (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineLetter.pdf)
-
I've been asking the same question going on a decade. I never have been quite certain whom the "Resistance" is resisting. Is it the sspx? Is it the Conciliar Church? Or is it, perhaps, a combination of the two?
My impression, from being on this forum for about a decade now, is it's a combination of the two.
-
The Resistance is resisting the non-resistance of the SSPX against the Conciliar Church.
It is? Furnish a few quotes from Resistance bishops to this effect. I have not heard +W or anyone else associated with the Resistance resisting the non-resistance of sspx. As stated earlier, +W stated categorically that sspx has done a good work in the past, and are doing it presently.
-
What is the SSPX resistance? I'm new in regard to this but I've heard the term 'resistance' come up several times and am unsure on the actual details.
Can someone give me a rundown or is there another thread that explains this that I can read up on? Thanks.
Anthony, I just read on another thread that you are Australian and that you attend SSPX chapel. The resistance priest here in Oz is Fr Edward MacDonald and his base is in Brisbane. I haven’t met him, but am in email contact. I am sure it would be worthwhile to make contact. he would gladly add you to his list. Are you near Brisbane?
-
Anthony, I just read on another thread that you are Australian and that you attend SSPX chapel. The resistance priest here in Oz is Fr Edward MacDonald and his base is in Brisbane. I haven’t met him, but am in email contact. I am sure it would be worthwhile to make contact. he would gladly add you to his list. Are you near Brisbane?
I am not in Brisbane, though thanks for the info. There aren't much options for traditional (ordained) mass/sacraments in this country so I am glad and thankful (to God) that I have at least one option I can go to.
If you wouldn't mind, could you private message me his contact details?
-
And yet, these men (including the largest Trad organization ever, the SSPX) have done more good for the Catholic Church and for souls in a few hours' time than you will accomplish in your lifetime. So there's that.
It's easy to talk smack. At least when priests/bishops duke it out in public you have two men who have given their lives for Christ disagreeing about a disputed matter. It really slays me, though, when armchair theologian laymen presume to judge men who have given their *all* for the cause of Jesus Christ and the salvation of souls.
I'm sorry, but even if you were a member of a Third Order you'd still fall far short of the complete donation of self that being a priest entails.
These priests have voted with their LIVES. In the game of life, they went ALL-IN. Let's at least acknowledge that fact. Could they be wrong, and you right, about this one issue? Maybe. But they earned the right to choose which Missale to use, which organization/bishop should be trusted, etc.
These priests need more guts to go out in public for 2 hours (dressed in full clerical garb as they are) than most of us are required to have over a months' time. These men witness to the Faith 24/7. And not just in nice conservative or Catholic parts of the country. Places like New York. And in all times, too, such as the early 2000's when the "clerical abuse scandals" were front-and-center in the media cycle.
So you'll excuse me for trusting these bishops and priests, whose biographies read like the lives of saintly missionary priests of old, rather than the opinion of some rando on an Internet forum.
So in the 1962 Holy Week, do you genuflect for the conversion of the jews, like the rest of the SSPX? :popcorn:
-
Yes, it's bad.
Why? Because it represents Bugnini's masonic prototype for de-sacralizing the Tridentine Mass by butchering the liturgy of the Church's most Holy Week. What was left of the traditional Church did not resist it.
Which contributed to the eventual substitution of the Tridentine Mass with the Novus ordo missae.
The 1962 Missal represents part of newChurch's "slow-boil" conspiracy, as endorsed by the jєω-pope, Paul VI.
Therefore, +ABL, the neo-SSPX and the "resistance" Bishop Williamson were, and remain wrong in embracing and promoting the 1962 Missal.
This is hysterical baloney!!
Baloney? Are you saying Bugnini was not involved in the Holy Week changes?
-
It is? Furnish a few quotes from Resistance bishops to this effect. I have not heard +W or anyone else associated with the Resistance resisting the non-resistance of sspx. As stated earlier, +W stated categorically that sspx has done a good work in the past, and are doing it presently.
At the time of his expulsion, +W said he couldn't organize a 2nd SSPX, because he didn't have the authority. And even and if he tried to, the jews would infiltrate it.:laugh1: In 2012, he effectively threw the towel-in on an active, functional SSPX Resistance.
HE's "Resistance" didn't form an organization to aggressively recruit and educate seminarians, to assist and reassign defecting neo-SSPX priests or to assist priests at independent chapels. The SSPX ate these vulnerable chapels for lunch.
With HE's Resistance, we get his EC's and few ordained men per year.
That's all Bishop Williamson represents, a passive resistance.
But as Orestes said, the Traditional Catholic resistance doesn't depend on titular SSPX Resistance leader to survive.
It is organic and has been carrying on since before +ABL.
-
So in the 1962 Holy Week, do you genuflect for the conversion of the Jєωs, like the rest of the SSPX? :popcorn:
Isn't it awkward to go to an SSPX chapel on Good Friday and not genuflect for the conversion of the Joos?
-
Isn't it awkward to go to an SSPX chapel on Good Friday and not genuflect for the conversion of the Joos?
You can’t be serious! Wasn’t it awkward for Our Lord Jesus to hang on the Cross while the spectators mocked and jeered?
-
Isn't it awkward to go to an SSPX chapel on Good Friday and not genuflect for the conversion of the Joos?
Sure, it’s a little awkward, being the only guy in the chapel with the courage not to genuflect, but you get used to it (the obvious solution/preference is to watch the traditional Holy Week Good Friday online where everyone remains standing).
But it shouldn’t be forgotten that the rubrics don’t pertain to the faithful; technically, you can take whatever posture you want, whenever you want.
Remaining standing later disposed me to chuck the experimental transitional abrogated Bugnini rites altogether, and also disposed me to resist our priest’s changes to the postures of the faithful during sung Mass when they came a few years later (standing when the priest ascends the altar; standing when he is incensed; standing through the Sanctus; standing through the Agnus Dei; etc). Now I’m one of only 3-4 people of 550 who have retained the postures we used for the first 40 years of our chapel.
Add to that the congregational singing (ie., the new postures were to encourage this), dialogue Masses, and schola flapping in the center aisle, and the changes brought in by our Class of 2009 priests (we’ve had 3 of LeRoux’s initial class in the last 10 years) really add up.
You lose what you don’t fight to retain.
-
Sure, it’s a little awkward, being the only guy in the chapel with the courage not to genuflect, but you get used to it (the obvious solution/preference is to watch the traditional Holy Week Good Friday online where everyone remains standing).
But it shouldn’t be forgotten that the rubrics don’t pertain to the faithful; technically, you can take whatever posture you want, whenever you want.
Remaining standing later disposed me to chuck the experimental transitional abrogated Bugnini rites altogether, and also disposed me to resist our priest’s changes to the postures of the faithful during sung Mass when they came a few years later (standing when the priest ascends the altar; standing when he is incensed; standing through the Sanctus; standing through the Agnus Dei; etc). Now I’m one of only 3-4 people of 550 who have retained the postures we used for the first 40 years of our chapel.
Add to that the congregational singing (ie., the new postures were to encourage this), dialogue Masses, and schola flapping in the center aisle, and the changes brought in by our Class of 2009 priests (we’ve had 3 of LeRoux’s initial class in the last 10 years) really add up.
You lose what you don’t fight to retain.
We at our chapel literally stand up only to immediately sit down at one point. We also stand for the Sanctus and Agnus and I always found that quite annoying.
Interestingly enough, today the priest read the Gospel and Epistle in Latin for the first time! And he read them in our native tongue before the homily. I wonder what prompted the change and whether it will stick, I sure hope it does.
-
Interestingly enough, today the priest read the Gospel and Epistle in Latin for the first time! And he read them in our native tongue before the homily. I wonder what prompted the change and whether it will stick, I sure hope it does.
What?
The priest always reads the Gospel and Epistle in Latin. Sedevacantist, pre-1955, 1962, Indult, you name it.
And then it will be read to the people in English before the sermon/homily, at least on Sundays. It depends on the priest. That part is optional.
The only priests who DON'T read these in Latin are the Novus Ordo priests.
-
What?
The priest always reads the Gospel and Epistle in Latin. Sedevacantist, pre-1955, 1962, Indult, you name it.
And then it will be read to the people in English before the sermon/homily, at least on Sundays. It depends on the priest. That part is optional.
The only priests who DON'T read these in Latin are the Novus Ordo priests.
I’m guessing he is in France, where, in certain areas of the country, surprisingly (or perhaps not), the SSPX has only read the gospel and epistle -at the altar- in the vernacular…for decades.
The French latched onto the modernist liturgical movement early on, and hence their clinging to practices like this (or dialogue Masses, or the Pian Holy Week, or flappers, congregational singing, etc) pass as “traditional,” on the basis of their preconciliar or pre-Novus Ordo origin.
-
The French latched onto the modernist liturgical movement early on, and hence their clinging to practices like this (or dialogue Masses, or the Pian Holy Week, or flappers, congregational singing, etc) pass as “traditional,” on the basis of their preconciliar or pre-Novus Ordo origin.
If the whole congregation of the Faithful adding melody to their centuries-old Latin prayers in worship of the True God is Modernist, then BRING ON THE MODERNISM. THE MORE THE BETTER!
"He who sings prays twice".
-
Having studied the Catholic Mass and having been subjected to the study of the conciliar Luther Mass of Pius VI, and this is what feels like an I’ve age ago, what the 62 Missal - with the Second Confiteor - would’ve a stArting point for a greater restoration. Alas with neoSSPX I cannot see them doing the pre1955 Holy Week, as one example. They are too far gone for that.
Our mission chapel gets indulterers from the Fssp time and again because Mass is not offered Sunday here. Dialogue Mass-ism has made some inroads, and hoi poloi singing is encouraged, at least for English hymns. I pray I have done my best with Latin hymns at the offertory and Communion, keeping in mind silence must outweigh constant music, even if it is good; Mozart, Byrd, Elgar, Bruckner, Schubert, Gonoud and the like.
It is those who join in to chant/sing who have not practiced or do so unexpectedly, they are a concern. The schola does not sing much as we have but a few High sung Masses a year. Numbers are too few. The regular choir is two people, ole Kaz the Polish bass bear, and a young lady of Polish ethnicity who has a beautiful soprano voice.
As for postures, I have difficulty kneeling because of the tight squeeze of the pews. If I go down I will remain down. genuflections are replaced with deep reverent bows. Being a very large and tall Kaz Polish pickle restricts movement in the pew.:smirk:
Thankfully I occupy the last pew on the right hand side and adopt furthest to the right so I am not obstructing anyone. Thus no kneeling for dem bad ole perfidious jujubes at Good Friday, even though the Missal used sticks with the pre1955 oration. Haven’t figured that out yet.
At least there is no flapping……
-
Having studied the Catholic Mass and having been subjected to the study of the conciliar Luther Mass of Pius VI, and this is what feels like an I’ve age ago, what the 62 Missal - with the Second Confiteor - would’ve a stArting point for a greater restoration. Alas with neoSSPX I cannot see them doing the pre1955 Holy Week, as one example. They are too far gone for that.
Our mission chapel gets indulterers from the Fssp time and again because Mass is not offered Sunday here. Dialogue Mass-ism has made some inroads, and hoi poloi singing is encouraged, at least for English hymns. I pray I have done my best with Latin hymns at the offertory and Communion, keeping in mind silence must outweigh constant music, even if it is good; Mozart, Byrd, Elgar, Bruckner, Schubert, Gonoud and the like.
It is those who join in to chant/sing who have not practiced or do so unexpectedly, they are a concern. The schola does not sing much as we have but a few High sung Masses a year. Numbers are too few. The regular choir is two people, ole Kaz the Polish bass bear, and a young lady of Polish ethnicity who has a beautiful soprano voice.
As for postures, I have difficulty kneeling because of the tight squeeze of the pews. If I go down I will remain down. genuflections are replaced with deep reverent bows. Being a very large and tall Kaz Polish pickle restricts movement in the pew.:smirk:
Thankfully I occupy the last pew on the right hand side and adopt furthest to the right so I am not obstructing anyone. Thus no kneeling for dem bad ole perfidious jujubes at Good Friday, even though the Missal used sticks with the pre1955 oration. Haven’t figured that out yet.
At least there is no flapping……
Kaz,
Suggest you continue to stay kneeling,
but when it's time to genuflect for those who mocked Our Lord with genuflections, just put do a facepalm :facepalm:
The meaning will be the same as if you didn't genuflect.
:laugh1:
-
Kaz,
Suggest you continue to stay kneeling,
but when it's time to genuflect for those who mocked Our Lord with genuflections, just put do a facepalm :facepalm:
The meaning will be the same as if you didn't genuflect.
:laugh1:
It was the Romans, not the Jews, who mocked Our Lord with genuflections.
-
It was the Romans, not the Jєωs, who mocked Our Lord with genuflections.
Approved Catholic mystics state it was the slaves of the jews, (the agents of the jews), who mocked Our Lord with genuflections.
In your liturgical interpretation, genuflecting for the conversion of the Roman Heathens should be banned by the Church because, as you say, it was they who mocked Our Lord with genuflections.
-
It was the Romans, not the Jєωs, who mocked Our Lord with genuflections.
During which particular moment of Our Lord's passion? Didn't St. John say that the Gospels were *not* a full record of Our Lord's sayings and actions? What if there were some other event, perhaps part of Tradition rather than Scripture?
Were the Jєωs content to stay at home while Jesus was taken to Herod's Court and mocked there? Or did some of them tag along? When Jesus was condemned to death by the kangaroo court of the Sanhedrin, when they immediately began to strike him (Scripture says they mocked him and said "prophesy, who is it that struck thee?"), did some Jєωs perhaps throw in a few mock genuflections?
Or, during countless minutes along the Via Dolorosa on the way to Calvary, did some Jєωs mock genuflect as the King passed by?
Too many unanswered questions.
Long story short, I'm taking the Church's word for it, that the Jews mocked Our Lord with genuflections on this day, and so we shouldn't genuflect during the prayer for them on Good Friday.
-
During which particular moment of Our Lord's passion? Didn't St. John say that the Gospels were *not* a full record of Our Lord's sayings and actions? What if there were some other event, perhaps part of Tradition rather than Scripture?
Were the Jєωs content to stay at home while Jesus was taken to Herod's Court and mocked there? Or did some of them tag along? When Jesus was condemned to death by the kangaroo court of the Sanhedrin, when they immediately began to strike him (Scripture says they mocked him and said "prophesy, who is it that struck thee?"), did some Jєωs perhaps throw in a few mock genuflections?
Or, during countless minutes along the Via Dolorosa on the way to Calvary, did some Jєωs mock genuflect as the King passed by?
Too many unanswered questions.
Long story short, I'm taking the Church's word for it, that the Jєωs mocked Our Lord with genuflections on this day, and so we shouldn't genuflect during the prayer for them on Good Friday.
Sorry, but this is what the Church teaches:
Matt 27: 27-34:
27 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=27&l=27-#x)Then the soldiers of the governor taking Jesus into the hall, gathered together unto him the whole band; 28 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=27&l=28-#x)And stripping him, they put a scarlet cloak about him. 29 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=27&l=29-#x)And platting a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand. And bowing the knee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, king of the Jєωs. 30 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=27&l=30-#x)And spitting upon him, they took the reed, and struck his head.
That’s Romans, not Jєωs.
There is no record anywhere in revelation of Jєωs mocking Jesus with genuflection, and consequently the Church hasn’t/couldn’t teach such a thing.
-
Even +Sanborn gets it wrong, when he writes:
“The reason is that the Church considered it inappropriate to use, at this point in which reference is made to the infidelity of the Jєωs, the same gesture — the genuflection — as the Jєωιѕн soldiers did to mock Jesus.”
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/GenJєωs.pdf (See p.1)
But as is clear from my preceding post, the soldiers are Roman, not Jєωιѕн:
Matt 27:27-
“Then the soldiers of the governor taking Jesus…”
Obviously, the soldiers “of the governor” were Roman, not Jєωιѕн.
-
Kaz,
Suggest you continue to stay kneeling,
but when it's time to genuflect for those who mocked Our Lord with genuflections, just put do a facepalm :facepalm:
The meaning will be the same as if you didn't genuflect.
:laugh1:
If we all survive until next year I will keep it in mind :cowboy:
-
It was the Romans, not the Jєωs, who mocked Our Lord with genuflections.
Dom Gueranger, The Liturgical Year:
Here the deacon does not invite the faithful to kneel. The Church has no hesitation in offering up a prayer for the descendants of Jesus' executioners; but in doing so she refrains from genuflecting, because this mark of adoration was turned by the Jews into an insult against our Lord during the Passion. She prays for His scoffers; but she shrinks from repeating the act wherewith they scoffed at Him.
It stands to reason. The Gospels mention in several places that the Jews mocked Our Lord. How does one mock someone who claims to be Christ and King of the Jews?
Furthermore, the Church teaches us through Her Liturgy: Lex orandi legem credendi statuit.
-
Dom Gueranger, The Liturgical Year:
Here the deacon does not invite the faithful to kneel. The Church has no hesitation in offering up a prayer for the descendants of Jesus' executioners; but in doing so she refrains from genuflecting, because this mark of adoration was turned by the Jєωs into an insult against our Lord during the Passion. She prays for His scoffers; but she shrinks from repeating the act wherewith they scoffed at Him.
It stands to reason. The Gospels mention in several places that the Jєωs mocked Our Lord. How does one mock someone who claims to be Christ and King of the Jєωs?
Furthermore, the Church teaches us through Her Liturgy: Lex orandi legem credendi statuit.
If it only "stands to reason," then you're admitting you really have no evidence for it (which of course you can't, since there is nothing in revelation saying what you are alleging).
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
It is from Gueranger's historical error, that this mistake has spread.
Moreover, the Church's liturgy has nothing to do with Gueranger's erroneous commentary (It is the liturgy which teaches Gueranger, not the other way around).
I'll pay you $100 if you can find a reputable approved source predating Gueranger that says the Jєωs mocked our Lord by genuflecting to Him.
It's on par with St. Thomas Aquinas allegedly saying "authority is the weakest form of argument" in the Summa, when he said no such thing (it was a translator's error, which omitted "...according to Boethius," not St. Thomas).
-
History, and tradition, are always a little muddier than one likes, with our propensity to modern, scientific "cleanliness". And it should be that way. Tradition is broader than our way of thinking, and she, like the Church, offer us balance.
The explanation for the omission of the genuflection as a symbol of the mockery from the Jєωs dates back to the great Frankish liturgical commentator Amalarius of Metz (d. 850), in De Ecclesiasticis officiis IV.1.13. It is repeated throughout the High Middle Ages by many of the great liturgical commentators of that period: Sicardo of Cremona (Mitrales, VI), Jean d'Avranches (in Liber de Officiis Eccl.), Jean Beleth (Rationale Divinorum Officiorum 98), etc. I believe Durandus also makes the same commentary although I don't have a citation on hand.
Amalarius: Per omnes orationes genuflexionem facimus, ut per hunc habitum corporis, mentis humilitatem ostendamus excepto quando oramus pro perfidis Judaeis. Illi enim genu flectebant, opus bonum male operabantur, quia illudendo hoc faciebant. Nos ad demonstrandum quod fugere debeamus opera quae simulando fiunt, vitamus genuflexionem in oratione pro Judaeis.
Sicardus: Pro Judaeis vero non flectimus genua, ut vitemus illorum illusionem, quoniam irrisorie sua Deo flectebant.
That being said, each of these commentators note what SeanJohnson noted, that the Gospels plainly say it was the Romans who mocked Our Lord with genuflections: Matt. 27:29, Mark 15:18, John 19:3. They attempt to make several roundabout explanations for why the rubric makes sense when applied to the Jєωs, and sometimes leave the impression that they are not fully convinced of their own commentary!
If one looks at the earliest manuscripts for the Roman Rite, in fact we discover that the omission was not original. The prayer for the Jєωs was treated just as all the other solemn prayers The omission of the genuflexion was introduced in the 9th century, from Frankish influence, although in some places the ancient Roman practice persisted even through the 12th century. There is no consensus on why the omission for the genuflection (as well as Oremus and Flectamus) were introduced.
Given that the omission was a later introduction and that it was the Roman soldiers who mocked Our Lord in this way, and since most people here seem fine with the vandalism of changing the liturgy to make it more palatable for our modern tastes, so long as it doesn't pose a "danger to the Faith," it would make sense to move the omission from the prayer for the Jєωs to the prayer for the pagans instead! ;)
So, when do I get my $100? :laugh1:
-
Thanks for all the answers everyone, it really broadened my vision. One last thing, is the 1962 missal 'bad'? I'm not too familiar with anything older or why some people don't like it.
An impartial discussion around the merits of the 1962 missal are impossible within the Society until saner times return. This discussion is in fact happening in the former Ecclesia Dei groups because they do not have the history surrounding the lead up to 1983-4 with the Nine and +ABL's discussions with John Paul II for Quattuor abhinc annos.
Is it a danger to the Faith? In a positive sense, clearly no. This reflects the Archbishop's wisdom in stopping here, even though Econe used the 1967 missal through the 1970s (which most of us would find scandalous if we were to see a 1967 Mass today).
A better question is: at what point do the omission of prayers, the changing of many ancient rubrics and vestments, the calendar, etc. and even how these prayers are titled and understood, the introduction of "optionitis" that becomes crystalized in the Novus Ordo, at what point do little changes like these pose a danger to the faith? "Death by a thousand paper cuts" is the phrase that comes to mind. Or the frog boiling... But this sort of question, and how it is fleshed out theologically, will very likely not be settled in any of our lifetimes.
Just some notes, however, for the liturgically/historically minded. 1962 is clearly a transitional missal. One sees this not only from the notes of the Consilium through this period, but also the many changes between 55 and 69. It clearly lacks stability and has the note of forced experimentation throughout, when seen in contrast with the pre-62 Roman rite. This last qualifier is important; the experimental character only truly comes to light when one sees it in contrast with what came before. I spoke once with a young woman who grew up with the reformed Holy Week and thought it was "traditional" for Easter Vigil to be at midnight! But then I spoke again with another young woman who grew up in a chapel that used the pre-reformed Holy Week and was shocked once she began attending a Society chapel! To her, the differences were night and day.
Just because one is not used to hearing "Benedicamus Domino" during Advent or Lent does not mean "Ite missa est" is traditional, for example. And if you think that's not a big deal because it's not a danger to the Faith, then you have no grounds to stand on in defending the Roman rite or any rite whatsoever. In fact, it would make the Novus Ordo itself fine, if its certain problematic prayers were given the option of being replaced by "good" prayers. But at that point, one would merely substitute in the pre-69 prayers! This hypothetical reveals to us a liturgical truth: the nature of a rite is not in minimalism, but in the unique features that set it apart, that is, liturgical "maximalism". Since a rite is not a natural substance but an artifact in the Aristotelian sense, these features are the only way in which one rite differs from the other, all of which contain the basics for a valid Sacrifice. A rite isn't merely where a consecration occurs; it is all the ancient, unique features that developed historically under the guidance of the Holy Ghost and then in turn overflowed into culture and society. What makes a ship this particular kind of ship? What makes a liturgical rite the Roman rite?
Almost no SSPX priest says the 1962 Mass or Office fully according to its proper rubrics. They either incorporate pre-62 rubrics that were suppressed, or they add post-62 rubrics that no one is really aware of, because a rubrical study of this time period is quite dizzying. But the list of rubrical and calendrical changes between the 62 and pre-62 is quite large. The 62 missal was actually the big introduction for the optional vernacular... Contemporary editions of the 1962 don't include the vernacular, which is why we don't realize this.
-
The Holy Week changes are also lumped into this discussion but those were in use before 62, and only affect 3 days, but not the actual mass for the rest of the year.
The Holy Week reform affected more than just the Triduum, hence Holy Week reform. And not merely "3 days," but the most ancient parts of the Roman rite. Palm Sunday's Mass and Office were hugely mangled. E.g. the Missa sicca removed, procession changed, the Passion narrative was reduced by 40 verses (including the Institution of the Eucharist), the introduction of a temporary "table" and versus populum, etc. etc.
For Holy Monday - Spy Wednesday, each Passion Gospel removed the entirety of the Institution of the Eucharist and Last Supper events. Hence with the reformed Holy Week, the Gospel accounts of the institution of the Eucharist (and priesthood) appear nowhere in the Roman rite whatsoever. And we know from these changes plus the changes on Good Friday that they were removed in order to unlink the Eucharist/priesthood from the Sacrifice of Calvary.
But is it a danger to the Faith? Well, at what point when one removes planks from a ship, does it cease to be useful for carrying cargo across water?
-
History, and tradition, are always a little muddier than one likes, with our propensity to modern, scientific "cleanliness". And it should be that way. Tradition is broader than our way of thinking, and she, like the Church, offer us balance.
The explanation for the omission of the genuflection as a symbol of the mockery from the Jєωs dates back to the great Frankish liturgical commentator Amalarius of Metz (d. 850), in De Ecclesiasticis officiis IV.1.13. It is repeated throughout the High Middle Ages by many of the great liturgical commentators of that period: Sicardo of Cremona (Mitrales, VI), Jean d'Avranches (in Liber de Officiis Eccl.), Jean Beleth (Rationale Divinorum Officiorum 98), etc. I believe Durandus also makes the same commentary although I don't have a citation on hand.
Amalarius: Per omnes orationes genuflexionem facimus, ut per hunc habitum corporis, mentis humilitatem ostendamus excepto quando oramus pro perfidis Judaeis. Illi enim genu flectebant, opus bonum male operabantur, quia illudendo hoc faciebant. Nos ad demonstrandum quod fugere debeamus opera quae simulando fiunt, vitamus genuflexionem in oratione pro Judaeis.
Sicardus: Pro Judaeis vero non flectimus genua, ut vitemus illorum illusionem, quoniam irrisorie sua Deo flectebant.
That being said, each of these commentators note what SeanJohnson noted, that the Gospels plainly say it was the Romans who mocked Our Lord with genuflections: Matt. 27:29, Mark 15:18, John 19:3. They attempt to make several roundabout explanations for why the rubric makes sense when applied to the Jєωs, and sometimes leave the impression that they are not fully convinced of their own commentary!
If one looks at the earliest manuscripts for the Roman Rite, in fact we discover that the omission was not original. The prayer for the Jєωs was treated just as all the other solemn prayers The omission of the genuflexion was introduced in the 9th century, from Frankish influence, although in some places the ancient Roman practice persisted even through the 12th century. There is no consensus on why the omission for the genuflection (as well as Oremus and Flectamus) were introduced.
Given that the omission was a later introduction and that it was the Roman soldiers who mocked Our Lord in this way, and since most people here seem fine with the vandalism of changing the liturgy to make it more palatable for our modern tastes, so long as it doesn't pose a "danger to the Faith," it would make sense to move the omission from the prayer for the Jєωs to the prayer for the pagans instead! ;)
So, when do I get my $100? :laugh1:
I have to say, the article which I believe you gleaned this information from (?) is the most scholarly I have seen on the subject of the history and meaning of this rubric:
https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/262137402/Historia-de-La-Rubrica-de-Los-Improperios-Contra-Los-Judios#
And while I obviously agree with the author's conclusion that, "it most certainly cannot be said that we refrain from kneeling because by this act the Jews mocked Jesus during His sacred passion," I am surprised to learn by the same article (and your post) that this error predates Gueranger.
I am happy to have paid for this education.
If you can PM me your name/mailing address, I am happy to send you your reward.
-
And while I obviously agree with the author's conclusion that, "it most certainly cannot be said that we refrain from kneeling because by this act the Jєωs mocked Jesus during His sacred passion," I am surprised to learn by the same article (and your post) that this error predates Gueranger.
Your persist in your arrogance in accusing Gueranger of error, acting as if there's only the Sacred Scriptures. I cited passages from the Fathers when you first made this accusation where the Fathers indicated that the Jєωs were behind the mocking genuflections. Even if it had JUST been the Roman soldiers physically doing it, the Jєωs were the ones who made the false accusation against Our Lord about His aspiring to become a King (against Caesar), and that it is precisely this false allegation that led to this mockery by the Roman soldiers that was reported by Sacred Scripture. Whether they did it physically or not, their false charges against Our Lord were the formal cause of these blasphemies, making them responsible for it.
-
While there's nothing wrong inherently with having the genuflection at the prayer for the Jews ... we're genuflecting to God anyway of course ... the context of the modern ecuмenical motivation effectively makes it a symbolic genuflection TO the Jews, a kowtowing to them, as it were. So while the genuflection itself in the Liturgy is directed toward God, putting the genuflection back in at this point represents a symbolic genuflection to the Jews themselves.
-
Your persist in your arrogance in accusing Gueranger of error, acting as if there's only the Sacred Scriptures. I cited passages from the Fathers when you first made this accusation where the Fathers indicated that the Jєωs were behind the mocking genuflections. Even if it had JUST been the Roman soldiers physically doing it, the Jєωs were the ones who made the false accusation against Our Lord about His aspiring to become a King (against Caesar), and that it is precisely this false allegation that led to this mockery by the Roman soldiers that was reported by Sacred Scripture. Whether they did it physically or not, their false charges against Our Lord were the formal cause of these blasphemies, making them responsible for it.
That Gueranger is in error is indisputable.
The argument that Gueranger is still correct, because what he “really meant” was that the Jews were the remote cause of the genuflections, is a direct contradiction of his position (which says it was the Jews themselves who genuflected).
The fathers you quote are not making the same argument as Gueranger; they are contradicting him.
-
While there's nothing wrong inherently with having the genuflection at the prayer for the Jєωs ... we're genuflecting to God anyway of course ... the context of the modern ecuмenical motivation effectively makes it a symbolic genuflection TO the Jєωs, a kowtowing to them, as it were. So while the genuflection itself in the Liturgy is directed toward God, putting the genuflection back in at this point represents a symbolic genuflection to the Jєωs themselves.
Nobody is advocating reinserting the genuflection, but merely pointing out the historical error of attributing the genuflection to the Jews, rather than the Romans.
-
Why would we genuflect at all? This doesn't seem to jive with other times/places/situations where we must genuflect: at the Last Gospel, in front of the Blessed Sacrament are a couple that come to mind.
-
Why would we genuflect at all? This doesn't seem to jive with other times/places/situations where we must genuflect: at the Last Gospel, in front of the Blessed Sacrament are a couple that come to mind.
Who's saying we should genuflect??
-
I have to say, the article which I believe you gleaned this information from (?) is the most scholarly I have seen on the subject of the history and meaning of this rubric:
https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/262137402/Historia-de-La-Rubrica-de-Los-Improperios-Contra-Los-Judios#
And while I obviously agree with the author's conclusion that, "it most certainly cannot be said that we refrain from kneeling because by this act the Jєωs mocked Jesus during His sacred passion," I am surprised to learn by the same article (and your post) that this error predates Gueranger.
I am happy to have paid for this education.
If you can PM me your name/mailing address, I am happy to send you your reward.
It looks like that link perhaps doesn't give the proper attribution to the article (but I can only see a preview of the first few pages). John Oesterreicher, "Pro Perfidis Judaeis", Theological Studies 8, no. 1 (1947).
Blumenkranz, “Perfidia” Archivum latinitatis medii aevii 22 (1952) studies the history and meaning around "perfidia" itself in detail as well. Despite the Jєωιѕнness of the author's name, he makes the solid case that there's nothing wrong with the word in this prayer (not that anyone here is claiming otherwise, just giving a summary). There are other articles from this time period that do likewise. That the Consilium would remove this speaks to how easily they could disregard scholarship if it didn't align with their ideology.
As I said, the genuflection is present in the Roman rite for several centuries until Frankish influence in the 9th century, but persisted even into the 12th century in some places. It would make just as much sense, if not more, to omit a genuflection when praying for the conversion of the pagans. Despite the commentary around the rubric, and its "historical error" with respect to what the Scriptures say, I think it was a mistake to remove this rubric because it was clearly done for two reasons: 1) the Judaizing influence in the liturgical changes (the same Oesterreicher who in this article said, "The Church will hardly alter the words perifida Judaica" would a few years later be in support of Judaizing changes), and 2) Jungmann's near-heretical thesis of the "corruption theory of liturgical history".
Yet the Roman rite has these subtleties that show its historical growth, and they are beautiful and should be treasured, rather than cast aside for the sake of modernist pet theories on how liturgy "should" be. Another example: no Gloria or Alleluia on Holy Innocents to reflect Rachel weeping, violet vestments for mourning, etc., but on the octave day, red festal vestments to celebrate their glory as martyrs. 1962 removes all of this, even though it is ancient.
-
Who's saying we should genuflect??
I'm not saying that. I'm asking a general question as to why there would be a genuflection at all...whether it was the Roman soldiers who mocked or the Jews that mocked. Or anywhere in the Good Friday prayers for that matter. Given other times we genuflect, it seems odd to me.