Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: What is SSPX Resistance?  (Read 8473 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: What is SSPX Resistance?
« Reply #50 on: April 16, 2023, 07:34:13 PM »
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 did
n't genuflect.

:laugh1:

If we all survive until next year I will keep it in mind :cowboy:

Re: What is SSPX Resistance?
« Reply #51 on: April 16, 2023, 07:37:26 PM »
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.


Re: What is SSPX Resistance?
« Reply #52 on: April 16, 2023, 07:46:01 PM »
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).

Re: What is SSPX Resistance?
« Reply #53 on: April 17, 2023, 01:00:08 AM »
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:

Re: What is SSPX Resistance?
« Reply #54 on: April 17, 2023, 02:08:49 AM »
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.