Author Topic: What is SSPX Resistance? (Read 8427 times)

canis · « **Reply #55 on:** April 17, 2023, 02:25:24 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2023, 08:38:57 AM

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?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #56 on:** April 17, 2023, 06:24:39 AM »

Quote from: canis 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?

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #57 on:** April 17, 2023, 06:55:41 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 17, 2023, 06:24:39 AM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #58 on:** April 17, 2023, 07:02:40 AM »

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #59 on:** April 17, 2023, 07:07:13 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 17, 2023, 06:55:41 AM

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.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: What is SSPX Resistance? (Read 8427 times)

canis

Re: What is SSPX Resistance?

SeanJohnson

Re: What is SSPX Resistance?

Ladislaus

Re: What is SSPX Resistance?

Ladislaus

Re: What is SSPX Resistance?

SeanJohnson

Re: What is SSPX Resistance?