jump to navigation

That post on ‘negative ecclesiology’ was Providential September 18, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, Dallas Diocese, error, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgical Year, Liturgy, North Deanery, priests, sadness, scandals.
trackback

At least, I am convinced that it was.  I didn’t intend to do that post.  I had thought about it, but was busy with other things.  But late in the day, I felt a certain compulsion to put that post out.   Later last night, the reason became very clear.

As I post most weeks, I assist at the Novus Ordo Latin Mass at St. Mark in Plano.  I feel somewhat compelled to do so, since I am the person who requested the Mass.  I also do the readings there.  This is something I’d really rather not do, but again, since I was involved in this Mass coming into being, for which I am thankful, I do the readings as well as I can.  Last night, on the Monday of the 24th Week in Ordinary Time, the first reading was from 1 Cor chapter 11.  This is an enormously important bit of Sacred Scripture. Specifically, the reading was verses 16-26 and verse 33 sort of stuck out there on the end.  When I read it, my mind was saying “this is missing something, something really big.”  So when I got back to my pew, I pulled out my phone and looked up the verses that had been skipped over (1 Cor 11:27-32):

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.[28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29]For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.[30]Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. [31] But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. [32]But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.

This is, as I said, a tremendously important piece of Sacred Scripture. This is one of the prime parts of Scripture that define the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.  In fact, these verses, along with John chapter 6, are the most oft-cited verses in all of Scripture to support not only the Real Presence, but the Mass as Sacrifice, as well.  I thought to myself, “well, maybe they just skipped for this random Monday, but surely it is read on another day.”  Fr. Anthony Cekada, in Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI confirms that this excerpt NEVER appears, on any day, in all of the new lectionary.  It is simply ignored, because it contains ideas the fabricators of the Novus Ordo did not like.  Not only does this excerpt plainly state that we have to receive the Blessed Sacrament worthily – that is, in the state of Grace – but that we can expect very negative consequences if we do not, both eternally, in terms of God’s Wrath and Judgment, and even in this life, in the form of sickness or other chastisements.  This is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, and it is ignored because it was harmful to “ecumenism” and deadly to modernist presuppositions.  I should add that these verses are present in the Lectionary of the pre-VII Missal.

The new lectionary of the Mass of Paul VI was “sold” as being wonderful, since it ostensibly delved much more deeply into Scripture with it’s 3 year Sunday cycle and 2 year weekday cycle, “opening up the riches of Scripture.”  But Fr. Cekada shows, and in great detail, how, in point of fact, those who constructed the new lectionary consciously and very thoroughly avoided all topics they did not like – those topics dealing with negative ecclesiology already addressed, but also things they felt would be offensive to protestants or their own modernist sensibilities.

If we go back to 1 Cor 11, we find another portion of Scripture which has been dropped from the readings of the new lectionary, that is all of 1 Cor 11 verses 1-15.  This section deals with the submissiveness of women, and on the need for women to veil in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.  These verses are of course extremely unpopular and countercultural, especially in the modern West.  But God’s Word is not based on a popularity contest.

There was one final note from last night. The priest reiterated the very prevalent mid-20th century belief of biblical scholars – dominated at that time by modernism – that all the Gospels were written very much after St. Paul’s letters (the letters being written from roughly AD 52-63).  The modernist presupposition for this claim is that miracles don’t really happen, that Jesus Christ was just a man and had no special gift of prophecy, and thus the miracles and prophecies attributed to Him had to be written after the fact. The key to this modernist timeline is Christ’s forecast of the demise of Jerusalem, which occurred in AD 70.  Thus, modernists claimed that all the Gospels which reference that demise had to be written after that act.  Traditionally, the Church taught that St. Matthew’s Gospel was written first, and within a few years of our Lord’s passing, with the other Synoptic Gospels following within the next 20 years or so. The latest scholarship actually supports this traditional view, and not the dominant 20th century belief that Gospels were written way, way after Christ’s Ascension – some claims even had some of them written more than 100 years after the Ascension.  I find that incredible, since I just finished reading the Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, and he references the Synoptic Gospels in a letter written in AD 82.

I know this is almost certainly what the good priest was taught in seminary, but on such a matter, is it vital to relate when the Gospels were written to the souls in his care, even if the claim were true?  Does it make the Gospels have greater, or lesser authority if they are claimed to have been cobbled together by who knows what, possibly overly zealous, Christian 70, 80, 100 years after the Ascension?

I don’t believe that the fact that I’ve recently been contemplating “negative ecclesiology” was an accident. I don’t think it’s an accident I’m covering that portion of Cekada’s book right now, right when I gave a Scripture reading I was familiar enough with to know something was missing, tied together with Cekada’s (and others) analysis of the readings used in the Mass of Paul VI.  I think it was Providence.  Perhaps He wanted you to know.

Comments

1. dallas - September 18, 2012

This is just slightly related, but do you know of a cross-reference that shows when (of if) Bible verses are used in the lectionary?

tantamergo - September 18, 2012

Not completely sure. I know it’s a nightmare to compare which readings are in the 1962 Missal and which are in the 1970, but I don’t know of a comprehensive source that lists all the readings of the new Missal in some kind of order. Cekada spent years compiling his own cross-referenced database.

2. Catechist Kev - September 18, 2012

How about some other “negative ecclesiology” Scripture citations, Tantam?

For instance, one I told a freind about today, 1 Tim 5:20:

——————————————————————————————-

“Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear.”

——————————————————————————————-

She was a tad flabbergasted because she is constantly told not to “judge” and that she is not “accepting” and “welcoming” if we tell people they need to repent!

Is the verse above in the Novus Ordo readings?

What about Ezekiel 3:17-21? Is this one in the NO readings?:

——————————————————————————————-

Son of man, I have made thee a watchman to the house of Israel: and thou shalt hear the word out of my mouth, and shalt tell it them from me.
If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.

But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Moreover, if the just man shall turn away from his justice, and shall commit iniquity: I will lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die, because thou hast not given him warning: he shall die in his sin, and his justices, which he hath done, shall not be remembered: but I will require his blood at thy hand.

But if thou warn the just man, that the just may not sin, and he doth not sin: living he shall live, because thou hast warned him, and thou hast delivered thy soul.

——————————————————————————————

I, too, have noticed those verses from 1 Cor 11 that have been – ahem! – conveniently eliminated. 😦

CK

tantamergo - September 18, 2012

Oh, I’ll have to try to look them up. I don’t have a comprehensive resource of all the NO readings. I’ll see if I can find them in Work of Human Hands.

Thanks for your comments!

3. Woody - September 18, 2012

Interesting that you think the “good priest” learned this in seminary. I wonder when he went and what seminary he went to for formation.

tantamergo - September 18, 2012

Not in Dallas. Not sure. This is still taught in virtually all seminaries in the US. He was in seminary 30-35 years ago.

Woody - September 18, 2012

Yes although I know of one seminary in Columbus, Ohio that does not teach it!

4. Terry Carroll - September 18, 2012

I don’t know which specific Psalms were left out, but the new Liturgy of the Hours doesn’t contain all 150 Psalms, plus verses were left out of others Psalms, all from the same “negative theology” point of view. Apparently God is too harsh for modern ears. For this reason alone I will have nothing to do with the Liturgy of the Hours. The “nasty” old Breviary from before Vatican II contains all the Psalms and all the verses of the Psalms.

The evidence of a conscious, evil agenda behind the construction of the new Lectionary, orations and Liturgy of the Hours is pretty much indisputable, no matter how much it sounds like a “conspiracy theory.” It’s not a “conspiracy theory” if people really did cooperate to achieve this distorted end. Yes, we have more readings from more passages of Scripture, but only the “right” ones.

5. Frank - September 20, 2012

It seems as if the more wicked we become, the less the progressive priests believe we should beg for God’s mercy. Many times the Confiteor or the Kyrie is left out at Mass on Sunday. I don’t think this is coincidental.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: