Monday, August 10, 2009

Worship and Belief in the Conciliar Church: A Study in Heterodoxy, Continued

Traditional Roman Catholicism Compared with the Conciliar Church:

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

A.) Worship: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Prayer or Cult) clearly expressed a true (unbloody) re-presentation of the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary for the remission of sin in which the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ was made present in the Eucharist under the species of bread and wine understood by all as the “real (substantial) presence” of Christ in the Eucharist referred to as Transubstantiation. There was no question that the Traditional Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V was intended to be a sacrifice. The Roman Catholic Church taught that its Mass was instituted by Jesus Christ himself on Holy Thursday in anticipation (extra-space/time dimensionally) of his crucifixion and propitiatory death the next day on Good Friday. According to traditional Catholic teaching it is simply wrong to imply as do the Protestants that Jesus Christ was speaking only metaphorically in saying "this is My Body" "this is My Blood."

The "bread of life" discourse in the 6th chapter of St. John's Gospel (John 6: 32-65) clearly establishes that Christ had spoken to the disciples of the then future Eucharistic sacrament which he would institute at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday. Many of His followers were clearly puzzled by the teaching, some of whom abandoned him because of it, (John 6: 66) . At the time of the Protestant "Reformation" additional numbers of His followers deserted him primarily over the doctrine of the real substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, demonstrating that in Protestantism, nothing had really changed in 1500 years. The "reformer's" were simply recycling an old heresy which Christ had refuted during His "3" year ministry. The lesson is clear; there will always be those who refuse to believe what Christ has clearly taught. Moreover, it should be unnecessary to point out that the original 12 Apostles and their immediate follower's in the faith (the Father's of the Church) being that they had actual contact with (or knew someone who had) the risen Christ would be in the best position to know what had in fact been intended by Jesus Christ in establishing the Eucharist.

The seminal issue then is that prior to the Second Vatican Council the Mass was presented fundamentally as a “sacrifice” (hence the name Holy Sacrifice of the Mass), not a memorial meal or supper service as the Lutherans for example understand it. The victim offered was the spotless/sinless Lamb of God Jesus Christ--for the remission of sin.

The Traditional Latin Mass evinced the Sacred, was God-Centered, and was performed in the Latin language.

The alter was a center piece of the Mass upon which the timeless sacrifice of Christ was re-presented at each Mass-extra space/time dimensionally. Alters were constructed of heavy stone, were immovable and were designed to mirror the immutability of God and the stability of the Roman Catholic faith. The Priest along with the people faced the alter.

The Tabernacle was positioned in the center of the alter in a position of prominence. Eucharistic devotion was strongly encouraged.

Music was awe-inspiring and Gregorian Chant had pride of place.

The faithful approached the alter reverently, then assumed a kneeling position at the communion rail by which to adore and then receive the substantially present body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The Sacred host never touched the hands of anyone but the Priest who confected the sacramental consecration. Only those who believed themselves worthy to receive the body and blood of our Lord presented themselves for communion. Nowhere near the entire assembly communicated due to a fear of being unworthy. St. Paul's warning against partaking of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner was at the forefront of every Catholic's mind. Frequent confession by a huge number was the norm especially before mass.

Only the Priest and the servers were allowed inside the alter rail.

All 4 Gospels were utilized in the Mass throughout the year, not simply the synoptic Gospels. In omitting the Gospel of St. John in the Novus Ordo Missae, the conciliar church has refused to expose the faithful to the clear teaching of Jesus Christ with regard to the Holy Eucharist. The "bread of life discourse" is absent. This is further evidence that the conciliar church has no intention of continuing the Traditional Roman Catholic Mass of the Fathers, Doctors and Saints of the Church. St. John was spoken of by Christ Himself as the specially favored apostle. Why would the conciliar church have the hubris to remove St. John's Gospel from the Novus Ordo Missae?

St. John also clearly taught that for Jesus Christ the test of one's love for Him is in the obeying of His commandments, (John 8: 12,32-32,51; 12:26; 14: 15,21,23; 15: 9-10). This was without doubt the orthodox Traditional Roman Catholic theological rendering prior to Vatican II. Every person's salvation was dependent up until the moment of death upon the keeping of Christ's commandments and remaining in a state of grace. The pre-Vatican II Catholic person in facing death always called for a Priest. This was in order to make as perfect a last confession as possible and to receive Extreme-unction, the Last Rite's of the Church.

The conciliar church on the other hand has mirrored the Protestant teaching in de-emphasizing obedience to Christ and instead substitutes a nebulous "faith" in which simple intellectual/emotional ascent (belief) to Christ's existence as their personal savior suffices to make one a Christian and to insure salvation irrespective of whether they follow His commandments or not. Even the demons "believe" (agree) that Christ exists! To that extent the conciliar church and its worship service is not Catholic.

In the Traditional Latin Mass, the references to Hell, damnation, and the prescient warnings against ungodly behavior were included. In the Novus Ordo these have been removed as if to sanitize it for a modern audience. In making these alterations, the conciliar church betrays its true desire which is to anthropomorphize the mass rather than insure that it is God-centered as the Traditional Roman Catholic Church did. It is clear that the Novus Ordo Missae is a man-made concoction designed by men for man. It is not the least bit centered on the worship of almighty God who is deserving of our undivided attention and love. We cannot love (obey) God if we love ourselves more. In that case we become our own god which returns us to the lie of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. The Novus Ordo does not do justice to God who loved (a supreme act-ion of agape in real time) man enough to endure an excruciating death on the Cross. The Tridentine Latin Mass does. It is sacred, full of proper reverance in virtually every action and utterance of Priest and congregation. Surely that should make even the most liberal conciliar innovator pause.

To be continued...

No comments:

What/Where is the Roman Catholic Church?

In light of Traditional Catholic dogma/doctrine, how should the Second Vatican Council be viewed ? Is it consistent with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching?

What explains the tremendous amount of "bad fruit" which has been forthcoming since the close of the Council in 1965? “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16)

This site explores these questions and more in an attempt to place the Second Vatican Council in proper perspective.