SSPX leader hopes Vatican will take "first step"

[Desert Walker]

Ratzinger has clarified exactly why the excommunication was enacted. Marcel declared that the "Conciliar Church" had broken one hundred percent with its own tradition, thus becoming non-Catholic. That is what Marcel taught. He taught that the "break" was accomplished in several Conciliar actions.

1. The teaching on religious liberty (which Marcel apparently mistook for religious relativism)

2. The teaching on the "collegiality" of the pope and bishops (which Marcel apparently mistook for a heresy against papal authority)

3. The reform of the Liturgical functions of the Church (which Marcel apparently considered the equivalent of cutting the pipeline of sanctifying grace, received through the Sacraments, which sustains the Church Militant on Earth)

My list is in no way the entire picture, but I think it's a basic enfleshment of it.

Now someone please help here, because I am tempted to agree with Marcel on #3.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Regarding point three it is important to neither place history above theology nor to place theology above history. Doing so produces a false dichotomy and is contrary to both the organic nature of the Church and Holy Tradition.

We see in history a number of changes occuring in the liturgy from the primitive Church up to the present. It being most certainly outside the scope of this post (and even this website) to give a scholarly account of the entire development of Sacred Liturgy, I will simply focus on some particular points. First, we must acknowledge that prior to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Catholic Liturgy was split into two seperate parts. The first part occurred at the temple or in the synagogue, while the second (the liturgy of the Eucharist) took place in the home of one of the people. Following the destruction of the temple, (as well as in the diaspora during the post-Resurrection Second Temple period) the Liturgy of the Word developed slowly and grew more removed from the Judaic synagogual ritual (see the Didache). If the pre-formal liturgy of the primitive Church properly confected the sacraments, we can be sure that the liturgy of Paul VI, which has been officially ratified and upheld by the Magisterium of the Church, also properly confects the sacraments. As a second example, we can look to St. Basil's reform of the liturgy, which, according to most recent scholarship, shortened a Divine Liturgy that could have been as long as four to six hours down to about two hours (the later changes made by St. John Chrysostom did not substantially change the length of the liturgy). Pointing out the fact that all of the essential elements or parts of the Mass are retained in the Pauline Liturgy, it is safe for us to conclude that the Basilian alterations were, at the very least, [i]just as drastic[/i], and at the most, significantly moreso, than that of the current [i]Novus Ordo[/i]. Thus again, we come to the conclusion that if the Liturgy of St. Basil properly confected the sacraments, so too, then, does the Liturgy of Paul VI.

The point is that the Liturgy is organic. Changes occur, and are guided by the proper authorities. Could certain changes kill the liturgy? Sure, removing the Liturgy of the Eucharist would certainly do that. Do major changes kill the liturgy? Not necessarily. Big changes have happened in the past without doing so (and I'm inclined to think that some of the past changes have been even bigger than the Pauline). So when big changes occur, what should we do? We should look to the authority and Magisterium of the Church as the most sure guide, and that is exactly what Marcel failed to do.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff