In his 1947 Encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy, Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII attempted to set the record straight – and prophetically so, as we shall see – concerning the true relationship between the sacred liturgy and sound doctrine. He described the issue immediately at hand as follows:
…the fallacious reasoning of those who have claimed … that the Church is obliged to declare such a doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy, and to reject it otherwise. Hence the epigram, “Lex orandi, lex credendi” – the law for prayer is the law for faith. (Mediator Dei 46)
“But this,” he tells us, “is not what the Church teaches and enjoins.” (ibid., no. 47) Getting to the heart of the matter, the Holy Father writes:
But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, “Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi” – let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer.
In other words, it’s not so much the case that the liturgy informs the Church as to what is, and what is not, sound doctrine, but rather, one may say, is it the other way around.
Lionel: Correct. Agreed. This was 1947.
_________________________
The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church … the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the supreme teaching authority of the Church. (ibid. 47,48)
NB: The entire liturgy of the one true Church of Christ – every aspect and portion of it – is comprised of, and gives witness to, the Catholic faith. This means that unsound doctrine has no place whatsoever in the liturgy of the Church; it is not enough that it be primarily, mostly, or even overwhelmingly comprised of the true faith.
The reason for this is very simple.
“The sacraments and the sacrifice of the altar,” Pope Pius XII reminds us, “[are] Christ’s own actions.” (ibid. 31) Even Sacrosanctum Concilium – the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II – for all of its shortcomings, saw fit to affirm that “every liturgical celebration is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church.” (SC 7)
As such, the liturgy of the Church is necessarily devoid of falsehood, error, or any such thing as that which may endanger one’s faith.
Lionel: However when the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX)and Louie interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with a false premise, then doctrine has changed. So at Holy Mass, in any Rite, the liturgy reflects the new doctrine, the false doctrine.
For example at Mass in Latin, the SSPX priest says every one needs to enter the Church but some do not since there are exceptions(practical) of the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) etc. At Mass in Italian or English the priest says the same and also adds Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatitis Redinitigratio 3, Gaudium et Specs 22 etc as being exceptions to EENS.
So the rubrics at Mass in any language is still the same but the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church has changed.Doctrine has changed. The rule of belief has changed.
On the other hand I can attend Mass in Italian or Latin and the ecclesiology has not changed for me.I do not interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise like Louie Verrecchio, the SSPX, sedevacantists and Pope Francis and Pope Benedict.
________________
Yes, I do realize that this is about as basic a Catholic concept as one may ever hope to consider, but evidently far too few have attempted to apply it to our present day circumstances. Perhaps what follows will help readers make the connection.
In clarifying the relationship between liturgy and belief, the Holy Father does not deny that liturgical rites – including those conducted by the heretical communities – serve to form the faith of those who participate in them; they most certainly do as one inevitably comes to believe as he prays.
One notes that as Pope Pius XII wrote, the nightmare known as the Novus Ordo was still several decades away. In other words, he was expounding upon the doctrinal purity inherent to the Traditional Latin Mass, as well as to the other approved rites of that time.
Lionel: Yes.However after 1949 that doctrinal purity officially ended.It officially ended with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.A new theology was created with a false premise. So the innovation in theology and ecclesiology is there at Mass in Latin and English. The Latin Mass today, for the SSPX for example, no more has the exlusivist ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass of the Jesuits in the Middle Ages. The past Magisterium did not project invisible cases of the BOD and I.I as being visible exceptions to the traditional, strict interpretation of EENS.
So salvation- doctrine has changed in the Catholic Church and it is reflected at Mass in all Rites including that of the Byzantine Greek Mass, which pre-dates the Traditional Latin Mass. The lex credendi has changed.
__________________
So, how well does the so-called “new Mass” measure up to the teaching set forth in Mediator Dei?
Lionel : Mass in the vernacular is the same as the innovative Latin Mass today.If it was not the same Pope Francis would not permit Mass in Latin.
_______________
For an answer, we will begin by looking at the official text of the so-called Roman Missal for the Novus Ordo. I will limit myself to just one citation, in this case, taken from the Rite of Christian Burial (aka, the funeral Mass).
During what is called the “Final Commendation and Farewell,” among the options the priest is instructed to pray is the following:
One day we shall joyfully greet him/her [the deceased] again when the love of Christ, which conquers all things, destroys even death itself.
I suspect that many readers have heard this prayer offered at the funeral of an impious individual who was estranged from the Church, perhaps even for many years, and thought to themselves, How dare Father take it upon himself to canonize the dead!
The reason an astute member of the faithful may have such a visceral reaction to this prayer is obvious: Assuring those who mourn that that they will one day “joyfully greet” their deceased loved ones, without qualification, is incompatible with the Catholic faith; it smacks of the once saved, always saved error held by so many heretics.
Lionel: True. However the priest is responding to Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise which is accepted by the SSPX and Louie Verrecchio.
The priest is also responding to EENS interpreted with the false premise, as accepted by the SSPX and Louie.
So since there is no more exclusive salvation in the Church, the priest, like the popes and cardinals assumes there is known salvation outside the Church. So the faith- teaching has been changed.The rule of belief is not the same as in 1947.
If the ecclesiology can be changed said Cardinal Kasper then why cannot even the moral teachings be changed. Pope Francis and Pope Benedict have the same understanding.
_____________
So much for the entire liturgy having the Catholic faith for its content!
Lionel: So much for the liberals and Lefebvrists! Don't include me. The faith-content has not changed for me.Since I do not interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the false premise. I have a choice.
__________________________
Now recall what was previously stated: Liturgical rites do indeed serve to form the faith of those who participate in them as one inevitably comes to believe as he prays. Given what has been cited from the official text of the Novus Ordo above, we should therefore expect to observe widespread religious indifferentism among its participants.
Lionel. The religious indifferentism is also there among the supporters of the SSPX. Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano mentions the doctrinal chaos in the Church but not the doctrinal chaos in the SSPX.
__________________________
In other words, the behavior of many who worship in this rite should give evidence to their belief that one can be saved outside the Church; e.g., in any one of the numerous self-proclaimed Christian confessions, non-Christian religions, or perhaps even in no religious community at all. Likewise should we expect to observe a lack of evangelical zeal among many such persons, as if the work of seeking converts to Christ through His Holy Catholic Church is of little or no import, effectively nullifying the Divine Commission. (Mt. 28:16-20)
Lionel: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) and so he believed that 'one can be saved outside the Church'.He did not make the speculative and practical theology distinction which Brother Andre Marie MICM explained in a video- interview with Anthony Flanders.
The SSPX Bishops and priests have criticized Feeneyism. So they do not hold the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. For them according to their webiste, there are practical exceptions of BOD, BOB and I.I.So there is a new, innovative understanding of EENS for them.It takes into account a false premise and inference.
They continue to bless LOHO like the liberals.This is a doctrinal mess. Even the old Catechisms are cited as contradicting the strict interpretation of EENS. Since BOD and I.I referred to objective cases for Archbishop Lefebvre.
_____________________
Who among us can deny that this particular, and erroneous, rule of belief is evident, not only among vast numbers of the Novus Ordo rank and file, but also a preponderance of the men who constitute the hierarchy of that community, reaching all the way to the top!
Lionel: It erroneous rule of belief is also there among the SSPX bishops.It is there among the sedevacantist communities like that of Bishop Donald Sanborn and Bishop Mark Pivarunas, influenced by Archbishop Lefebvre.
_________________________
(Does the phrase “proselytism is solemn nonsense” ring a bell? If so, note that the man who said it was merely following the lead of his immediate predecessors.)
Lionel: Pope Francis follows the laws placed by the Left for all.Even Bishop Bernard Fellay did the same. Even today, why does the SSPX not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS ? They are politically correct with the Left. Why does the SSPX not interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and so affirm Feeneyite EENS ? They are afraid of the Left.
Why does Louie Verrecchio not affirm Vatican Council II and EENS without the false premise? Why not ? Since he has a family to support.
_______________________
A similar situation is made evident in the results of a 2019 survey published by Pew Research, which indicated that a high percentage of Catholics in the U.S. do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. According to the data, more than one-third (37%) of those who attend the liturgy weekly or more believe in a merely symbolic presence, and this with no distinction being made between those who worship in the Novus Ordo versus the Traditional Latin Mass.
Most Catholic commentators reacted by decrying the poor quality of post-conciliar catechesis, a common lament of both conservatives and traditionalists. In response, the bishops pledged to renew their efforts to teach the Real Presence moving forward.
It must be admitted, however, that the vast majority of post-conciliar priests, bishops and educators have been plainly teaching the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Even the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, issued under John Paul II and edited by Christoph Schönborn, treats the doctrine well, with footnotes citing St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent.
What few seem to have considered is the distinct possibility that the problem isn’t truly catechetical, but rather liturgical. Had Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre been alive to see the Pew survey data, there is little doubt that he would have made the connection. In his famous 1974 Declaration, he wrote:
It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae corresponds a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church. This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical.
Lionel: Yes this is the result. The heresy is the result. The heresy is not the actual cause. Since with ambiguity Catholics can affirm and deny the faith at the same time.
The real cause is the use of a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II. The false premise was there in LOHO and it was accepted by the popes.So lex credendi has been changed. This is reflected in the Mass. The lex credendi has also been changed at SSPX seminaries.
For the SSPX the break with Tradition has been caused by Vatican Council II. This is the result of the Council for them. They do not realize that the break with Tradition is caused by the false premise.If the premise is avoided today there is a continuity with Tradition.
_______________________________
So too would Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, former head of the Holy Office, have recognized the problem. In the Brief Critical Study on the New Order of Mass that he and Cardinal Bacci presented to Paul VI in 1969, it is observed:
Lionel : Both these cardinals, like Pope Paul VI were interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise, instead of without it. They had a choice.It was the same with Archbishop Lefebvre.
Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II then made the same mistake. They did not interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise. They accepted LOHO with the objective mistake.They did not support Fr. Leonard Feeney.Through out Vatican Council II the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was not lifted by Cardinal Cushing. He interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise as he did in 1949 with EENS. It was the same with the Jesuits in the USA who expelled Fr. Leonard Feeney from their their community.
Now present day Jesuits and the SSPX interpret Vatican Council II with the common false premise.Both groups are dissidents.Any one who interprets a Magisterial document with a fake premise is a modernist.A false premise has to produce a false inference and a non traditional conclusion.
_______________________________
The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering, turning it into a sort or exchange of gifts between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the “bread of life”; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a “spiritual drink” …
By suppressing the continual reference to God in the Eucharistic prayers, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.
Lionel: This is not my experience when I attend the Novus Ordo Mass here.
______________________
Is it any wonder belief in the Real Presence is so lacking in the Novus Ordo?
Lionel: Not for me.
_________________
Bringing our examination back in line with the teaching offered in Mediator Dei, let us be clear in acknowledging the proper order of things; it is the rule of belief that determines the rule of prayer.
Lionel. Correct.Agreed.
_________________
What this means is that the doctrinally unsound proposition noted above – that we shall one day joyfully greet our deceased acquaintances, regardless of how wicked they may have been in life and death, or the true status of their relationship with the Church – doesn’t come from the Novus Ordo, properly speaking, rather, it found its way into that rite because it is the rule of belief held by the community in which this liturgy is celebrated.
Lionel: Yes it comes from false doctrine, it comes from the false interpretation of Vatican Council II, common among those who attend Mass in Latin and the vernacular.
____________________
And where precisely does one find this rule of belief articulated plainly? In the text of Vatican Council II, of course.
The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio, states:
The brethren divided from us [schismatics and heretics] also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion … These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation … For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [the schismatic and heretical communities] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (UR 3)
Lionel : In the interpretation of the text of Vatican Council II. I interpret the text differently . I avoid the fake premise of the liberals and Lefebvrists.
___________________
The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio, states:
The brethren divided from us [schismatics and heretics] also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion … These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation … For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [the schismatic and heretical communities] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (UR 3)
Lionel : Hypothetically, speculatively there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. Practically all need faith and baptism for salvation (Ad Gentes 7) , all need to be members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell ( EENS, Athanasius Creed etc). So UR 3 does not refer to a personally- known person saved outside the Church. This is always understood. It is common sense. Only God can know if someone is saved outside the Catholic Church without faith and baptism.No one knows of a Good Thief(Dismas) saved in 2021 outside the Catholic Church. No one knows of a St. Emerentina in the present times. No one saw her in Heaven without the baptism of water.
So UR 3 does not contradict the traditional ecumenism of return.There cannot be any practial exception.
It is not an exception for me, for the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
In the interpretation of Vatican Council II , there is nothing in the entire text of Unitatis Redintigratio to contradict Tradition. UR 3 refers to something which exists only in our mind, our imagination etc..
_________________
The rule of belief in this case is unambiguous. It establishes the unsound doctrine that membership in the Catholic Church is optional with respect to salvation! This is what determines the rule of prayer for the Novus Ordo Rite of Christian Burial.
Lionel: Yes the rule of belief becomes ambiguous and even heretical and schismatic. Bishop Bernard Fellay has interpreted UR 3 as a break with EENS. It is there on line. So the unsound doctrine is there among the traditionalists and the liberals.
________________
Other texts could be cited to demonstrate the conciliar rule of belief that views all manner of false religions as not only praiseworthy, but also as efficacious unto helping man reach his fulfillment. For the sake of brevity, I will give but one more example:
Lionel: Yes since the false premise is common. It is like an epidemic in the Church, a theological epidemic.
_______________
Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. (Nostra Aetate 2)
Lionel : Yes it is referring to the good and positive things in other religions. The other religions we know, are not paths to salvation according to the Church in Vatican Council II. All need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7 etc).All.
________________
Yes, you read that correctly; the rule of belief set forth in this text establishes that Buddhism provides “a way” – the clear implication being that there are many – in which one may confidently acquire “perfect liberation.”
Lionel: Again it depends upon how the text is interpreted.If the Council Fathers presented this text assuming that Buddhism is a path to salvation, then it could be because they used the false premise to interpret EENS.We do not have to do the same. There is a rational and traditional choice.
We must note that the Council Fathers and the popes did not correct the mistake in the LOHO.They supported Cardinal Richard Cushing and not Fr. Leonard Feeney. Among them were conservatives including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
________________
The faith of the Catholic Church, by contrast, is founded upon the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “The truth will set you free. I am the way, the truth and the life.”
Lionel: However liberals and Lefebvrists contradict Jesus' teachings in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 when they say there are exceptions. These are exceptions created with a false premise and inference.
______________________
At this point it should be crystal clear to all that the rule of belief that determines the rule of prayer professed in the Novus Ordo is unsound and incompatible with the doctrine of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. As such, the Novus Ordo liturgy bears public witness to a faith that is not Catholic.
Lionel : The same could be said for the Latin Mass. The proof is there in the statements and writings of the SSPX bishops. It is clear that the rule of belief for Archbishop Lefebvre was the same as that of the liberal popes and cardinals of his time.
____________
In no way, therefore, can the Novus Ordo be considered a Catholic rite.
Lionel: When the doctrinal chaos of the SSPX is cleared and they stop interpreting Creeds and Catechisms with a fake premise, then they would be able to see that a Catholic could be orthodox on doctrine and theology at also attend the Novus Ordo Mass.
____________
Bearing in mind the teaching in Mediator Dei cited above, one recognizes the Novus Ordo as a symptom more so than the problem, which is precisely this: The community that established this rite, and within which it is celebrated, is not, as it claims to be, the Holy Roman Catholic Church; it is, therefore, an imposter.
Lionel: The rule of belief at the Novus Ordo Mass or the Greek Byzantine Mass will be the same once the false premise is identified and avoided.Just as correct doctrine expressed itself in the liturgy before 1947 it will express it self in all Rites in 2021.
_________
In conclusion, let us end by acknowledging that the non-Catholic liturgy under review has long been known, and properly so, as the “Mass of Paul VI.”
Lionel: It has been known as such among those who use a false premise to create a traditionalist-liberal division in the Church.Without the false premise there is no theological basis for the present liberalism. So the division also ends.
________________
This is the same rite that was exclusively celebrated by John Paul II, dubbed the “Ordinary Form” by Benedict XVI, and is presently subject to “the supreme teaching authority” vested in the man known as Francis.
Lionel: I attend Holy Mass in the vernacular with the ecclesiology of the missionaries in the 16 century and the theology of the Church Fathers in the fourth century.There is not pre and post Vatican Council II ecclesiology for me. The Church has not changed for me with Vatican Council II.The Council is traditional on other religions and Christian communities.
______________
If all that has been said does not cause one to question the true nature of all that proceeded from Vatican Council II, either directly or indirectly, and the identity of those who promote it, nothing will.
Lionel: Over the years, for some reason, Louie Verrecchio does not acknowledge that the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance can be interpreted in two ways, one is rational and the other is irrational . Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre like the popes, chose the irrational option.
So we now have doctrinal chaos even among those who call themselves traditionalists.-Lionel Andrades
https://akacatholic.com/the-sacred-liturgy-and-the-rule-of-belief/
__________________
Posts
