Joined: 06 Feb 2006 Posts: 514 Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: SSPX's (un)official stance on new Good Friday prayer
Fellow AQ readers,
As many of you know, the SSPX priests of the United States had their annual priests meeting in Winona, MN this past week. Bp. Fellay was there and addressed the priests. The feedback we were given this past Sunday at the Syracuse, NY chapel both in the sermon and my private conversation with the prior is that the Society will not be using the new Good Friday prayer. It was stated that while there is nothing particularly erroneous about the prayer, the reason for staying with the original is that it is one of the most ancient prayers in the entire liturgy, the Jews really have no say in what Catholics do or say in their own Sanctuary, and the admission of Cardinal Kasper that we do not intend for the Jews to convert when saying this new prayer shows the intention behind it.
No, I do not have a link. Any others that were there or heard similar feedback from their own priests can back up what I am saying or you can call the priory or the District Superior.
Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 2324 Location: Mid-West
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:55 am Post subject: Re: SSPX's (un)official stance on new Good Friday prayer
Steven wrote:
It was stated that while there is nothing particularly erroneous about the prayer, the reason for staying with the original is that it is one of the most ancient prayers in the entire liturgy,
That is incorrect. The prayer prior to the pre-1955 changes is the most ancient prayer, certainly more so that the 1962. The SSPX has accepted the dropping of "perfidious" and the addition of the genuflection, which were clear concessions by Pius XII for the same reasons Benedict XVI made this concession.
It will be interesting to see how the other affiliate orders handle this. The Redemptorists clearly have accepted the prayer. _________________ Is. 12:3 ... I Cor. 15:25
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Posts: 65 Location: California
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject:
Does this mean that future printings of the Angelus missal will retain the older version of the Good Friday prayer? Or maybe they will make the change to the missal (keeping it "official" and accessable to most traditional Catholics) but continue to say the older Good Friday prayer? Fr. Peter Scott's letter seemed to indicate that many have already been saying the older (pre-1962) versions of the prayer regardless of what is in the 1962 missal. If that is the case then it would seem that this lates change will not have much impact on the SSPX one way or the other.
Joined: 06 Feb 2006 Posts: 514 Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:42 pm Post subject: Re: SSPX's (un)official stance on new Good Friday prayer
Haurietis Aquas wrote:
Steven wrote:
It was stated that while there is nothing particularly erroneous about the prayer, the reason for staying with the original is that it is one of the most ancient prayers in the entire liturgy,
That is incorrect. The prayer prior to the pre-1955 changes is the most ancient prayer, certainly more so that the 1962. The SSPX has accepted the dropping of "perfidious" and the addition of the genuflection, which were clear concessions by Pius XII for the same reasons Benedict XVI made this concession.
I didn't specify which Good Friday prayer was the most ancient nor did the priest so don't be so quick to jump on this. It's my understanding that some priests in the Society use the more ancient form of the Good Friday liturgy.
The Jews really have no say in what Catholics do or say in their own Sanctuary, but I would think that the Pope would have a say. I pray that this, if true, is not a step towards becoming the modern version of Old Catholics.
I fail to see how one can interpret this as the Jews determining our liturgical prayer life. The pope is hardly an idiot, and I cannot fathom that he was ignorant of the Jewish uproar that this prayer revision would cause. Hardly a good way to kowtow to the Jews.
I pray that this rumor is false; its consequences could be tragic.
Joined: 06 Feb 2006 Posts: 514 Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: Re: SSPX's (un)official stance on new Good Friday prayer
Haurietis Aquas wrote:
The SSPX has accepted the dropping of "perfidious" and the addition of the genuflection, which were clear concessions by Pius XII for the same reasons Benedict XVI made this concession.
Did we have a Cardinal Kasper running around at that time saying that we don't intend to pray for the conversion of the Jews in saying the prayer as we do now? The pope has access to the same and more information we have about the Cardinal's comments. He could come out with a statement tomorrow saying that Kasper's comments in no way reflect the mind and teaching of the Church, but he has not and most likely won't. Why is this?
1) It is true that there is nothing particularly ancient about the 1962 Good Friday prayer for the conversion of teh Jews (i.e., Since it was created in 1955). Now the Good Friday prayer BEFORE 1954 is very ancient.
2) There are certainly some questionable theological suppositions fount to subsist within the new Good Friday prayer (i.e., those noted by Fr. Scott, and expounded by Cardinal Kasper).
3) Resistance is also to be based on teh principle that we, as Catholics, do not let pressure groups dictate our prayer (and therefore our beliefs). To head down this path is to invite the dissolution of all religion.
4) It is true that some SSPX priests retain the 1954 Good Friday prayer (and omit the genuflection for the Jews). Just go to the seminary in Winona to see it. How prevalent this retention is, I have no idea. Personally I would like to see all use it. _________________ Contra Factum Non Argumentum
The Jews really have no say in what Catholics do or say in their own Sanctuary, but I would think that the Pope would have a say. I pray that this, if true, is not a step towards becoming the modern version of Old Catholics.
The pope has a say, but like every human lawgiver, his laws must be for the common good of the Church. He is the supreme legislator but not an absolute monarch; only God is that. The reasons to retain the old prayer are valid, especially given the impossibility of changing the lex orandi due to the pressure of the godless, and the official explanation a la Kasper who is the pope's official for matters ecumenical. And since kasper's explanation accords well with the perennial thought of the pope in his past writings, it is well to pay attention to it. I am very happy with the SSPX's decision since it is a cold shower for those who would hand the Church over to neo-modernists just because they get a Latin Mass (and even that is changed. Expect even more changes) Some traditionalists are using now the very arguments used during the 60s to accept the Pauline reforms.. He is the pope, he can change things, we can't refuse, etc.
It will be interesting to see how many "traditionalists" start the "SSPX is going schismatic" argument. It is always the same line. Will Angelqueen now start hinting that the SSPX is due to go the route of the Old Catholics just because they insist that the Pope's neo-modernist ideas might actually have practical consequences for souls? _________________ http://credidimuscaritati.blogspot.com
The Jews really have no say in what Catholics do or say in their own Sanctuary, but I would think that the Pope would have a say.
I obviously didn't read the whole thread before I replied, but this was my initial reaction as well. _________________ Uni trinoque Domino, Sit sempiterna gloria!
Joined: 06 Feb 2006 Posts: 514 Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject:
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
The Jews really have no say in what Catholics do or say in their own Sanctuary, but I would think that the Pope would have a say. I pray that this, if true, is not a step towards becoming the modern version of Old Catholics.
A pope had a say in the N.O. Mass as well and somehow most of us are comfortable avoiding at all costs the very Mass our current reining pontiff says on a daily basis.
Joined: 06 Feb 2006 Posts: 514 Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject:
fr.domenico wrote:
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
The Jews really have no say in what Catholics do or say in their own Sanctuary, but I would think that the Pope would have a say. I pray that this, if true, is not a step towards becoming the modern version of Old Catholics.
The pope has a say, but like every human lawgiver, his laws must be for the common good of the Church. He is the supreme legislator but not an absolute monarch; only God is that. The reasons to retain the old prayer are valid, especially given the impossibility of changing the lex orandi due to the pressure of the godless, and the official explanation a la Kasper who is the pope's official for matters ecumenical. And since kasper's explanation accords well with the perennial thought of the pope in his past writings, it is well to pay attention to it. I am very happy with the SSPX's decision since it is a cold shower for those who would hand the Church over to neo-modernists just because they get a Latin Mass (and even that is changed. Expect even more changes) Some traditionalists are using now the very arguments used during the 60s to accept the Pauline reforms.. He is the pope, he can change things, we can't refuse, etc.
It will be interesting to see how many "traditionalists" start the "SSPX is going schismatic" argument. It is always the same line. Will Angelqueen now start hinting that the SSPX is due to go the route of the Old Catholics just because they insist that the Pope's neo-modernist ideas might actually have practical consequences for souls?
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Posts: 65 Location: California
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject:
There seems to be far too much weight and credit given to Cardinal Kasper's off the cuff remarks and especially in light of the fact that the comments in question were later withdrawn or pulled from the original report. Why not simply focus on the rubric of the prayer for conversion and its only reasonalbe interpretation -- especially in light of the catechesis of the Holy Father concerning the call to converion of the Jewish people that already begun 2000 years ago (see below):
kgurries wrote:
Quote:
Negative Aspects of the New Prayer:
2) The ending of the new prayer is open to bad interpretation.
The original prayer of used for centuries was unambiguous in its intention for the conversion of the Jews. Now, due to the reference to “fullness of the Gentiles” placed at the end of the new prayer, people are debating if the Pope only intends the prayer to be the conversion of Jews at the end of time. I do not say that this “end-time” interpretation is the Pope’s intention, as I do not know either way. I simply point out that the debate now rages where it did not rage before.
Commenting on the new prayer, Cardinal Kasper said, “We think that reasonably this prayer cannot be an obstacle to dialogue because it reflects the faith of the Church and, furthermore, Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we Catholics don't like,” He also said “I must say that I don't understand why Jews cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to formulate our prayers,”
Kasper further stated, “When the Pope speaks now of the conversion of the Jews, one must understand this correctly. He quotes verbatim the eleventh chapter of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans. There the Apostle says that we as Christians hope, that when the fullness of the Gentiles enter the Church, that then will all of Israel be converted. That is an eschatalogical end-time hope, and thus does not mean that we have the intention of pursuing the conversion of the Jews as one pursues the conversion of the Gentiles (pagans).”14
This latter statement of Kasper, for whatever reason, was removed from the Haaretz website that initially reported it. Nonetheless, the debate goes on as to what are Pope Benedict’s true intentions. We have moved from certainty to uncertainty. This all the more worrisome when we consider some of Cardinal Ratzinger’s novel statements in Many Religions, One Covenant;15 in the Vatican document The Jewish People and Their Scripture in the Christian Bible;16 and in his 2003 book-interview: God in the World,17 none of which ever mention the need of Jews to convert to Christ’s one true Church for salvation.
I personally don't see any ambiguity on this point. I can even see why Cardinal Kaspar's remarks were later pulled. This new prayer for Jewish conversion along with its eschatological aspect has already been the subject of a catechesis of Pope Benedict XVI and rules out any possible misinterpretations that the call to conversion refers exclusively to some unknown "end-time". Here is the relevant section of the catechesis given in general audience:
Quote:
With their very own existence, the Twelve - called from different backgrounds - become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one. The fact that he entrusted to his Apostles, during the Last Supper and before his Passion, the duty to celebrate his Pasch, demonstrates how Jesus wished to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the mandate to be a sign and instrument in history of the eschatological gathering begun by him. In a certain sense we can say that the Last Supper itself is the act of foundation of the Church, because he gives himself and thus creates a new community, a community united in communion with himself.
The Jews really have no say in what Catholics do or say in their own Sanctuary, but I would think that the Pope would have a say. I pray that this, if true, is not a step towards becoming the modern version of Old Catholics.
The pope has a say, but like every human lawgiver, his laws must be for the common good of the Church. He is the supreme legislator but not an absolute monarch; only God is that. The reasons to retain the old prayer are valid, especially given the impossibility of changing the lex orandi due to the pressure of the godless, and the official explanation a la Kasper who is the pope's official for matters ecumenical. And since kasper's explanation accords well with the perennial thought of the pope in his past writings, it is well to pay attention to it. I am very happy with the SSPX's decision since it is a cold shower for those who would hand the Church over to neo-modernists just because they get a Latin Mass (and even that is changed. Expect even more changes) Some traditionalists are using now the very arguments used during the 60s to accept the Pauline reforms.. He is the pope, he can change things, we can't refuse, etc.
It will be interesting to see how many "traditionalists" start the "SSPX is going schismatic" argument. It is always the same line. Will Angelqueen now start hinting that the SSPX is due to go the route of the Old Catholics just because they insist that the Pope's neo-modernist ideas might actually have practical consequences for souls?
You have a point only if you believe that one substitution of one prayer on one day of the year (not even in the Mass) is the liturgical equivalent of a complete fabrication of a new Mass from whole cloth. That seems to me to be an enormous leap, one that I am not willing to make.
The Jews really have no say in what Catholics do or say in their own Sanctuary, but I would think that the Pope would have a say. I pray that this, if true, is not a step towards becoming the modern version of Old Catholics.
The pope has a say, but like every human lawgiver, his laws must be for the common good of the Church. He is the supreme legislator but not an absolute monarch; only God is that. The reasons to retain the old prayer are valid, especially given the impossibility of changing the lex orandi due to the pressure of the godless, and the official explanation a la Kasper who is the pope's official for matters ecumenical. And since kasper's explanation accords well with the perennial thought of the pope in his past writings, it is well to pay attention to it. I am very happy with the SSPX's decision since it is a cold shower for those who would hand the Church over to neo-modernists just because they get a Latin Mass (and even that is changed. Expect even more changes) Some traditionalists are using now the very arguments used during the 60s to accept the Pauline reforms.. He is the pope, he can change things, we can't refuse, etc.
It will be interesting to see how many "traditionalists" start the "SSPX is going schismatic" argument. It is always the same line. Will Angelqueen now start hinting that the SSPX is due to go the route of the Old Catholics just because they insist that the Pope's neo-modernist ideas might actually have practical consequences for souls?
Very well said! _________________ Contra Factum Non Argumentum
There seems to be far too much weight and credit given to Cardinal Kasper's off the cuff remarks and especially in light of the fact that the comments in question were later withdrawn or pulled from the original report. Why not simply focus on the rubric of the prayer for conversion and its only reasonalbe interpretation -- especially in light of the catechesis of the Holy Father concerning the call to converion of the Jewish people that already begun 2000 years ago (see below):
kgurries wrote:
Quote:
Negative Aspects of the New Prayer:
2) The ending of the new prayer is open to bad interpretation.
The original prayer of used for centuries was unambiguous in its intention for the conversion of the Jews. Now, due to the reference to “fullness of the Gentiles” placed at the end of the new prayer, people are debating if the Pope only intends the prayer to be the conversion of Jews at the end of time. I do not say that this “end-time” interpretation is the Pope’s intention, as I do not know either way. I simply point out that the debate now rages where it did not rage before.
Commenting on the new prayer, Cardinal Kasper said, “We think that reasonably this prayer cannot be an obstacle to dialogue because it reflects the faith of the Church and, furthermore, Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we Catholics don't like,” He also said “I must say that I don't understand why Jews cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to formulate our prayers,”
Kasper further stated, “When the Pope speaks now of the conversion of the Jews, one must understand this correctly. He quotes verbatim the eleventh chapter of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans. There the Apostle says that we as Christians hope, that when the fullness of the Gentiles enter the Church, that then will all of Israel be converted. That is an eschatalogical end-time hope, and thus does not mean that we have the intention of pursuing the conversion of the Jews as one pursues the conversion of the Gentiles (pagans).”14
This latter statement of Kasper, for whatever reason, was removed from the Haaretz website that initially reported it. Nonetheless, the debate goes on as to what are Pope Benedict’s true intentions. We have moved from certainty to uncertainty. This all the more worrisome when we consider some of Cardinal Ratzinger’s novel statements in Many Religions, One Covenant;15 in the Vatican document The Jewish People and Their Scripture in the Christian Bible;16 and in his 2003 book-interview: God in the World,17 none of which ever mention the need of Jews to convert to Christ’s one true Church for salvation.
I personally don't see any ambiguity on this point. I can even see why Cardinal Kaspar's remarks were later pulled. This new prayer for Jewish conversion along with its eschatological aspect has already been the subject of a catechesis of Pope Benedict XVI and rules out any possible misinterpretations that the call to conversion refers exclusively to some unknown "end-time". Here is the relevant section of the catechesis given in general audience:
Quote:
With their very own existence, the Twelve - called from different backgrounds - become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one. The fact that he entrusted to his Apostles, during the Last Supper and before his Passion, the duty to celebrate his Pasch, demonstrates how Jesus wished to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the mandate to be a sign and instrument in history of the eschatological gathering begun by him. In a certain sense we can say that the Last Supper itself is the act of foundation of the Church, because he gives himself and thus creates a new community, a community united in communion with himself.
When were Cardinal Kasper's comments withdrawn or pulled from the original report? Certainly not by him. Certainly not by me. _________________ Contra Factum Non Argumentum
The pope has a say, but like every human lawgiver, his laws must be for the common good of the Church. He is the supreme legislator but not an absolute monarch; only God is that.
Was the dropping of "perfidious" for the common good? Who are we to judge what is objectively good or not. Looking at the prayers in the abstract away from the 62 prayer there is nothing which is against the common good. The question then becomes, who governs the Church?
Quote:
The reasons to retain the old prayer are valid, especially given the impossibility of changing the lex orandi due to the pressure of the godless, and the official explanation a la Kasper who is the pope's official for matters ecumenical.
Kasper's personal beliefs, and his role in the Church, is not the point, the prayer is the point. It doesn't matter if Martini, Sodono, Rajinth, et al said the prayers were made for "X" purposes. The question is what does the prayer say and is it objectively good.
Quote:
Some traditionalists are using now the very arguments used during the 60s to accept the Pauline reforms.. He is the pope, he can change things, we can't refuse, etc.
Nope, we aren't. We realize the Roman rite isn't up for changing, or for a Novus Ordo, but the Roman rite must be preserved. I don't see how this affects the Roman rite in a change which was organic. If the question was based on the antiquity of the prayer that would be a different argument and then the argument must be made that we must use a pre-55 liturgy.
Quote:
...they insist that the Pope's neo-modernist ideas might actually have practical consequences for souls?
Since you have thrown out a non-sequitur, do you think the changes in the 62' have the same disastrous consequences? Do you think the changes in the Holy Week by a purported Mason had disastrous consequences? How does this affect the essence of the Roman rite?
You are doing the same demagoguery of the liberals you are supposedly snuffing out. Was Bugnuni a Modernist? If so was Pius XII taking part in such modernism? The changes in the 62' were also done for appeasement of modernism. At what point do you propose the organic changes in the Mass within a rite become a personal decision when the prayer is objectively good and truthful?
If by "withdrawn from the original report" you mean that the Jewish adminastrators have removed Cardinal Kasper's explanation from a Jewish website, I think that is hardly indicative of Cardinal Kasper having retracted his explanation of teh Holy Father's new prayer. It only proves that, well, the Cardinal's explanation is no longer on a particular website. _________________ Contra Factum Non Argumentum
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Posts: 65 Location: California
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject:
Bachelor of St. Paul wrote:
When were Cardinal Kasper's comments withdrawn or pulled from the original report? Certainly not by him. Certainly not by me.
I don't know since Venari was the one who caught it. In any case, there is too much emphasis on what Kaspar has to say in interviews. Recall that he came out in disagreement with the recent CDF instructions -- since all of this calls into question his ecumenical and interreligious "approach". It would be a mistake to hang our hats on what he has to say. Rather, look to the explicit words of the prayer itself and even the recent catechesis given by the Holy Father:
Quote:
With their very own existence, the Twelve - called from different backgrounds - become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one. The fact that he entrusted to his Apostles, during the Last Supper and before his Passion, the duty to celebrate his Pasch, demonstrates how Jesus wished to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the mandate to be a sign and instrument in history of the eschatological gathering begun by him. In a certain sense we can say that the Last Supper itself is the act of foundation of the Church, because he gives himself and thus creates a new community, a community united in communion with himself.
I honestly would like an answers because I can't see how this makes sense not to accept this prayer. The only solution would be to go back to a pre-Pius XII liturgy and to deny the 62' because of concessions and changes in the previous liturgy.
Can someone go beyond talking points and focus on the issue and the substance of the issue rather than making this a "liberal" or "traditional" argument? I want some points of view based on historical and liturgical fact.
It seems that some on this forum who want to defend the use of the new prayer are advancing arguments which actually promote a return to the 1954 missal (i.e., If we accepted the 1954 Holy Week revisions, we ought, to be consistent, accept the new Good Friday prayer).
Of course this reasoning leaves out of question the heretical interpretation officially placed on the new prayer by Kasper. And insofar as Kasper is the official liason in such matters, his heretical interpretation (remaining uncorrected) is the interpretation Catholics ought to give it.
Apparently the "head in the sand" crowd who refuses to acknowledge the pope could write such a disastrous and unacceptable prayer has never read his books, Dominus Iesus, or his last encyclical (where he seems to call into question the dogma of merit, and states most people will be saved after a detour in purgatory, etc.).
Nevertheless, I would certainly jump on the 1954 bandwagon! _________________ Contra Factum Non Argumentum
I honestly would like an answers because I can't see how this makes sense not to accept this prayer. The only solution would be to go back to a pre-Pius XII liturgy and to deny the 62' because of concessions and changes in the previous liturgy.
Can someone go beyond talking points and focus on the issue and the substance of the issue rather than making this a "liberal" or "traditional" argument? I want some points of view based on historical and liturgical fact.
Mr. Solimanto,
It's a question of judgement. Think of the present circumstances as a bizarro world in which the pope's judgement is no longer final, and in which serious Catholics have to form their own judgements on such things. That's what V2 has done to the Church.
There is no value in pretending that the Motu Proprio has reversed forty years of revolution and taken the problem away, so that we can all trust the Vatican implicitly again like we could under Pius XII. That would not be realistic.
Yes, we'd all like a complete theological solution to the mystery. But in the absence of that, we're not about to abandon Tradition, or the resistance to Modernism.
And always, always, always remember, this situation is not our fault. Benedict and those who think like him are responsible for it. We're only the victims. God has been very good to us! _________________ Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum!
Joined: 07 Apr 2005 Posts: 478 Location: Archdiocese of Atlanta
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject:
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
The Jews really have no say in what Catholics do or say in their own Sanctuary, but I would think that the Pope would have a say. I pray that this, if true, is not a step towards becoming the modern version of Old Catholics.
I was thinking the exact same thing. I too pray that this isn't where the Society is headed... _________________ Pax Christi,
Roger
The Jews really have no say in what Catholics do or say in their own Sanctuary, but I would think that the Pope would have a say. I pray that this, if true, is not a step towards becoming the modern version of Old Catholics.
I was thinking the exact same thing. I too pray that this isn't where the Society is headed...
The Old Catholics rejected a solemn defintion in preference to their own historical studies; the SSPX resists the greatest revolution in the history of the Church.
See if you can grasp the difference. They certainly can. _________________ Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum!
It seems that some on this forum who want to defend the use of the new prayer are advancing arguments which actually promote a return to the 1954 missal (i.e., If we accepted the 1954 Holy Week revisions, we ought, to be consistent, accept the new Good Friday prayer).
Of course this reasoning leaves out of question the heretical interpretation officially placed on the new prayer by Kasper. And insofar as Kasper is the official liason in such matters, his heretical interpretation (remaining uncorrected) is the interpretation Catholics ought to give it.
Apparently the "head in the sand" crowd who refuses to acknowledge the pope could write such a disastrous and unacceptable prayer has never read his books, Dominus Iesus, or his last encyclical (where he seems to call into question the dogma of merit, and states most people will be saved after a detour in purgatory, etc.).
Nevertheless, I would certainly jump on the 1954 bandwagon!
Cardinal Kasper has zero authority to bind the Church to an "official interpretation" of anything. As has been clear from recent events, he doesn't even have the authority to bind the Church to a deal in his own supposed portfolio. The repeated disingenuous invocation of the Kasper bogeyman is getting quite tiresome.
Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 2324 Location: Mid-West
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject: Re: SSPX's (un)official stance on new Good Friday prayer
Steven wrote:
Haurietis Aquas wrote:
The SSPX has accepted the dropping of "perfidious" and the addition of the genuflection, which were clear concessions by Pius XII for the same reasons Benedict XVI made this concession.
Did we have a Cardinal Kasper running around at that time saying that we don't intend to pray for the conversion of the Jews in saying the prayer as we do now? The pope has access to the same and more information we have about the Cardinal's comments. He could come out with a statement tomorrow saying that Kasper's comments in no way reflect the mind and teaching of the Church, but he has not and most likely won't. Why is this?
His name doesn't matter - the message has always been the same. Pius XII made the change, now so has Benedict XVI. I don't like it, I don't use Pius XII's change. But it is what it is. There is no difference in the reason for the change. Accept one, accept both. I see no other way "officially". _________________ Is. 12:3 ... I Cor. 15:25
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Posts: 65 Location: California
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:58 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Of course this reasoning leaves out of question the heretical interpretation officially placed on the new prayer by Kasper. And insofar as Kasper is the official liason in such matters, his heretical interpretation (remaining uncorrected) is the interpretation Catholics ought to give it.
I don't think we can refer to Kaspar's interview responses as anything "official" in regards to this prayer. The prayer was written by the Holy Father and released by Cardinal Bertone. Cardinal Kaspar is simply reacting like anyone else and just as he reacted against the recent CDF instructions that constrain his ecumenical and interreligious approach. Rather than Kaspar's (unofficial) interpretation we should look to the prayer itself and in the context of what the Holy Father has already taught on the matter:
Quote:
With their very own existence, the Twelve - called from different backgrounds - become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one. The fact that he entrusted to his Apostles, during the Last Supper and before his Passion, the duty to celebrate his Pasch, demonstrates how Jesus wished to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the mandate to be a sign and instrument in history of the eschatological gathering begun by him. In a certain sense we can say that the Last Supper itself is the act of foundation of the Church, because he gives himself and thus creates a new community, a community united in communion with himself.
Cardinal Kasper has zero authority to bind the Church to an "official interpretation" of anything.
It isn't a question of anybody "binding" anybody else, as a doctrinal law would. It is a question of trying to divine the meaning of this new prayer. Walter Kasper is the official spokesman to the group that is the subject of the prayer, as President of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. He has answered officially their questions. Unless his official response is rejected by the Vatican, surely it is only reasonable to accept it as the official position of the Vatican. Any other view would seem to be disingenuous, or at least foolish.
His response was not withdrawn, of course. Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, withdrew its report - that's all. Here is the letter Kasper sent to one Jewish gentleman, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, David Rosen.
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: Re: SSPX's (un)official stance on new Good Friday prayer
Haurietis Aquas wrote:
His name doesn't matter - the message has always been the same. Pius XII made the change, now so has Benedict XVI. I don't like it, I don't use Pius XII's change. But it is what it is. There is no difference in the reason for the change. Accept one, accept both. I see no other way "officially".
Well, in between we had Vatican II.
Think of it as it really happened. After V2 Catholics who woke up to the revolution began the process of retreating back to a position of sanity. Some went back to the pre-55 rites. Others went back only to the '62. In whatever case, they acted rationally and in good faith to try to salvage Tradition.
You can't tell them that they have to compromise now in order to be "consistent." They're not listening to those kinds of sophisms. Nor can you tell them they have to keep going back to earlier and earlier versions of the Roman Missal in order to be "consistent" - they're fully aware that popes have the authority to make changes to the Missal, so they won't be suckered by that sophism either.
Live and let live, and hold fast to the traditions we have received. And at some point, the Holy Ghost will repair the situation. _________________ Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum!
Cardinal Kasper has zero authority to bind the Church to an "official interpretation" of anything.
Walter Kasper is the official spokesman to the group that is the subject of the prayer, as President of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.
Kasper is not the official spokesman on the prayer. The Council of the Liturgy would be. Kasper has no official word on the matter, and has no authority to do so. The head of that Council is Card. Rajinth. Kasper's views would simply be personal, not official.
After reading your first reply, personal judgment is not sufficient for an explanation of what to do. History, and theological teachings by actual theologians (not personal priests, bishops, or cardinals) is what we should seek. Msgr. Gamber's book would be relevant since he was aware of the revolution and saw it clearly. His book said organic change is completely permissible. The question then remains is the change organic, and the answer clearly is "yes".
Kasper is not the official spokesman on the prayer. The Council of the Liturgy would be.
I really can't agree with that. The Council on the Liturgy didn't even issue the prayer. So maybe you could argue instead that the prayer itself isn't official.
Which brings us neatly back to the fact that whatever argument you need, you'll use. Because like all traditional Catholics, you'll stick fast to tradition and let every other thing be a variable.
Just accept that this is a mystery. You don't need to solve every problem. _________________ Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum!
I really can't agree with that. The Council on the Liturgy didn't even issue the prayer. So maybe you could argue instead that the prayer itself isn't official.
Well did Kasper release the prayer? No. Did his commission? No. The Pope did. The only person with an official meaning would be the PCL by Rajinth. Why you are arguing this while you previously stated Kasper had such an authority is an oddity.
Quote:
Which brings us neatly back to the fact that whatever argument you need, you'll use.
You haven't presented a true argument, just Kasper. Kasper isn't an authority on the issue. If you used Rajinth I would agree with you.
Quote:
Just accept that this is a mystery. You don't need to solve every problem.
This isn't a decade of the Rosary. To just say, "accept that it's a mystery" means we should just follow the Vatican on the issue, unless you think groups within the Church are able to unlock mysteries.
Of course this reasoning leaves out of question the heretical interpretation officially placed on the new prayer by Kasper. And insofar as Kasper is the official liason in such matters, his heretical interpretation (remaining uncorrected) is the interpretation Catholics ought to give it.
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Posts: 65 Location: California
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject:
Kaspar has no real authority or even credibility in this matter. It would seem that he does not even have credibility with the Jews who are asking for a more authoritative "clarification" on the "meaning and status" of the prayer than those offered by Cardinal Kaspar. Kaspar carries no weight in this Pontificate and the Jews must know it.
Of course this reasoning leaves out of question the heretical interpretation officially placed on the new prayer by Kasper. And insofar as Kasper is the official liason in such matters, his heretical interpretation (remaining uncorrected) is the interpretation Catholics ought to give it.
You do realize what this means don't you?
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I think maybe it rhymes with "fed-a-shake-and-kissed".
Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 563 Location: HURST, TX
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject:
kgurries wrote:
Does this mean that future printings of the Angelus missal will retain the older version of the Good Friday prayer? Or maybe they will make the change to the missal (keeping it "official" and accessable to most traditional Catholics) but continue to say the older Good Friday prayer? Fr. Peter Scott's letter seemed to indicate that many have already been saying the older (pre-1962) versions of the prayer regardless of what is in the 1962 missal. If that is the case then it would seem that this lates change will not have much impact on the SSPX one way or the other.
Our priest says the pre-55 version sans genuflection. I can't remember if he says perfidious, but I assume he does. _________________ O Crux, Ave, Spes Unica!
The pope has a say, but like every human lawgiver, his laws must be for the common good of the Church. He is the supreme legislator but not an absolute monarch; only God is that. The reasons to retain the old prayer are valid...
Father, with all due respect, this argument is a slippery slope that leads to the inevitable dismantling of all authority. Are we not bound by obedience in all but sin? It would be extremely easy to concoct thousands of excuses to disobey based on "valid reasons" or greater goods.
Doubtless the Jesuits could have appealed to the argument of the pope being bound by the common good of the Church when their order was suppresed. Doubtless Padre Pio could have argued the same way when his faculties revoked. They took the virtuous way and obeyed. We are not here dealing with a prayer that is evil or heterodox. One can hardly justify disobedience in this case.
The pope has a say, but like every human lawgiver, his laws must be for the common good of the Church. He is the supreme legislator but not an absolute monarch; only God is that. The reasons to retain the old prayer are valid...
Father, with all due respect, this argument is a slippery slope that leads to the inevitable dismantling of all authority. Are we not bound by obedience in all but sin? It would be extremely easy to concoct thousands of excuses to disobey based on "valid reasons" or greater goods.
Doubtless the Jesuits could have appealed to the argument of the pope being bound by the common good of the Church when their order was suppresed. Doubtless Padre Pio could have argued the same way when his faculties revoked. They took the virtuous way and obeyed. We are not here dealing with a prayer that is evil or heterodox. One can hardly justify disobedience in this case.
Your argument would be valid if the Pope was trustworthy in his doctrine. But this is not the case. Many of his works are heavily infected with neo-Modernism. Unless he rejects these errors and unequivocally returns to the past papal magisterium we must be very very circumspect concerning changes. We are not dealing with Pius XII here but with one who has been one of the professors of the New Theology. A little common sense is in order. We must be careful about putting forward a textbook version of the pope rather than the concrete new theologian we presently have. He is not all bad, of course, but he is very infected with false ideas. _________________ http://credidimuscaritati.blogspot.com
Your argument would be valid if the Pope was trustworthy in his doctrine. But this is not the case. Many of his works are heavily infected with neo-Modernism. Unless he rejects these errors and unequivocally returns to the past papal magisterium we must be very very circumspect concerning changes. We are not dealing with Pius XII here but with one who has been one of the professors of the New Theology. A little common sense is in order. We must be careful about putting forward a textbook version of the pope rather than the concrete new theologian we presently have. He is not all bad, of course, but he is very infected with false ideas.
Does his new theology make this prayer heterodox? Yes or no
Is the prayer objectively good? Yes or no
Again, you seem to be focusing on things unrelated to the thing in question, namely, a prayer. I could use that same reasoning on many people, and it's called ad hominem logic, which is fallacious. Sad things is you know this and you are doing it.
John XXIII could be argued he had modernist ideas. Should we reject the 62' liturgy as well?
Your argument would be valid if the Pope was trustworthy in his doctrine. But this is not the case. Many of his works are heavily infected with neo-Modernism. Unless he rejects these errors and unequivocally returns to the past papal magisterium we must be very very circumspect concerning changes. We are not dealing with Pius XII here but with one who has been one of the professors of the New Theology. A little common sense is in order. We must be careful about putting forward a textbook version of the pope rather than the concrete new theologian we presently have. He is not all bad, of course, but he is very infected with false ideas.
Does his new theology make this prayer heterodox? Yes or no
Is the prayer objectively good? Yes or no
Again, you seem to be focusing on things unrelated to the thing in question, namely, a prayer. I could use that same reasoning on many people, and it's called ad hominem logic, which is fallacious. Sad things is you know this and you are doing it.
John XXIII could be argued he had modernist ideas. Should we reject the 62' liturgy as well?
The fact that the old prayer is changed from one which asked the conversion of the Jews now to one which places their conversion at the end of time denotes a change of ideas, especially since all of the Vatican responses thus far back up a false interpretation. We have at best gone from clarity to ambiguity. Then the fact that the Pope has no plans to change the very dangerous prayer in the New Rite means that we must interpret the newly written prayer in light of the New Rite one, not in light of the old prayer. Next, though the newly written prayer is not unorthodox in itself, it is one written because of the pressure of the Jews, that is , the enemies of the Church. That circumstance effects the morality of the act itself, since it allows unbelievers to influence the Church's own prayer. There is no objective reason why we should stand by a traditional interpretation of this prayer since neither the Pope's theology, nor any official comment from Rome points in that direction. Rather the reverse. It is the ambiguity of the New Rite, rather than it's heterodoxy which makes it so dangerous. It is not clear. And given the fact that it is not clear how we are to interpret this prayer, it is to be put aside. This is not organic growth. It is weakness before the Church's enemies. _________________ http://credidimuscaritati.blogspot.com
Well did Kasper release the prayer? No. Did his commission? No. The Pope did. The only person with an official meaning would be the PCL by Rajinth.
Mr. Solimanto,
Please consider what you are suggesting. Walter Kasper's interpretation is the official response of his Vatican dicastery to the group for which it exists - the Jews. I presume that you accept this much. Are you suggesting that the Jews must accept as the Vatican's official explanation something which is different from the official explanation for Catholics? If so, do you think that the (future) official explanation for us is untrue, or do you think that the official explanation for the Jews is untrue?
And while you are pondering the implications of that, consider the alternative: neither is untrue, but rather both are merely facets of a multifarious "truth" which depends for its apprehension upon one's "perspective" so that both views may be mutually incompatible and yet both true. The prayer is an urgent call for the Jews to convert to Christ and enter the Church (orthodox and charitable), and it is also a prayer that they do so only at the end of the world (unorthodox and uncharitable).
Remind you of anything?
Michael Solimanto wrote:
Quote:
Just accept that this is a mystery. You don't need to solve every problem.
This isn't a decade of the Rosary. To just say, "accept that it's a mystery" means we should just follow the Vatican on the issue, unless you think groups within the Church are able to unlock mysteries.
No, to accept that this is a mystery is to hold fast despite the fact that Benedict is not a traditional Catholic - he says the New Mass every day, and believes in Vatican II as the harbinger and cause of a New Pentecost. The Church will one day have to explain that, as Archbishop Lefebvre said several times. _________________ Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum!
Your argument would be valid if the Pope was trustworthy in his doctrine. But this is not the case. Many of his works are heavily infected with neo-Modernism. Unless he rejects these errors and unequivocally returns to the past papal magisterium we must be very very circumspect concerning changes.
Yes, Father, but even a broken clock is correct twice a day. What I find a bit frustrating is that while most agree that the new Good Friday prayer is orthodox and theologically sound, almost all condemn it because of the Pope's prior works.
In other words, if asked "Does this clock show the correct time?", most answer "No, because it was incorrect five minutes ago".
Your argument would be valid if the Pope was trustworthy in his doctrine. But this is not the case. Many of his works are heavily infected with neo-Modernism. Unless he rejects these errors and unequivocally returns to the past papal magisterium we must be very very circumspect concerning changes.
Yes, Father, but even a broken clock is correct twice a day. What I find a bit frustrating is that while most agree that the new Good Friday prayer is orthodox and theologically sound, almost all condemn it because of the Pope's prior works.
In other words, if asked "Does this clock show the correct time?", most answer "No, because it was incorrect five minutes ago".
It is not that simple. You do not know if this prayer is fine or not, for it is capable of two interpretations: the traditional one and the one which is being given so far in Rome. So you do not know if, in fact, the clock is right or not. The fact that the old prayer was discarded and the one from the New Rite was not should give you a clue as to which interpretation is right. Does not the Pope say the prayer every year that the Jews remain faithful to their covenant? _________________ http://credidimuscaritati.blogspot.com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Thank GOD that the SSPX won't Cave in to the Jewish Vatican Lobby!... Deo Gratias.
