Asuntos Tradicionalistas

Olor a herejía en la misa de Pablo VI

Rogério César Pereira Gomes

Lumen gentium afirma que “el sacerdocio común de los fieles y el sacerdocio ministerial o jerárquico se ordenan el uno al otro… aunque difieren en esencia y no sólo en grado, cada uno de ellos en su modo particular es una participación en el único sacerdocio de Cristo.” (LG 10).

Pero también hay un significado heterodoxo subyacente en el Concilio Vaticano II (1962-1965), como se explica a continuación.

La Última Cena se hizo en la fiesta
de la Pascua Judía

La Misa es la reconstrucción de la cena pascual israelita del Antiguo Testamento (1), una ceremonia que conmemora el día en que Dios liberó a los israelitas de su esclavitud en Egipto La Pasión y Muerte del Mesías son la Nueva Pascua de la Nueva Alianza por el cual los fieles se salvan de la esclavitud del pecado y entran de nuevo en la tierra prometida, la Iglesia Católica que los conduce a la salvación eterna, el Cielo.

Al consagrar el pan y el cáliz en la Última Cena y ordenar a Sus Apóstoles que repitieran este acto como memorial del Sacrificio de la Cruz, Nuestro Señor estableció la celebración de la Santa Misa como la Nueva Pascua.

Según la enseñanza tradicional de la Iglesia, el Sacrificio lo realiza un solo sacerdote.

Ahora, según el Concilio, este concepto ha cambiado: ahora es una asamblea de bautizados -presidida por un oficial eclesiástico calificado- que recuerda el nacimiento, vida, pasión, muerte y resurrección de Jesucristo.

La Misa se transformó. Ahora bien, se trata de una “comida” litúrgico-eucarística (I Cor 11, 21) en la que es la comunidad la que celebra. Hay una diferencia nuclear entre el sacerdocio común de los fieles Lumen gentium y la idea tradicional de que sólo un miembro del clero puede celebrar la Misa.

Tal impugnación se expresa en la Misa Reformada de Mons. Aníbal Bugnini y sus luteranos cartagineses, siguiendo la orientación de la Constitución “Sacrosanctum Concilium” sobre la liturgia (2). La Misa que de ella emana fue oficializada el 30 de noviembre de 1969 por Pablo VI en su discurso a una audiencia general en el Ordo Missae.

Msgr. Annibale Bugnini con Paulo VI, los dos autores intelectuales de la Misa Nueva

Las ambigüedades en el texto de Sacrosanctum Concilium que están en la raíz de esta contestación fueron señaladas por el incomparable erudito conciliar Atila Sinke Guimarães:

“Una vez más, los resultados desastrosos son evidentes en cuanto a las ambigüedades de los textos de la Constitución Sacrosanctum Concilium, así como la reforma litúrgica y los documentos de 1969-1970 sobre la Misa”. (3).

En un cauteloso resumen de una línea, el teólogo franciscano progresista Buenaventura Kloppenburg reconoció que el Concilio de Juan XXIII y Pablo VI insinuó la idea de una igualdad eclesial entre el clero y los laicos: “La teología del laico parece haber puesto el teología del sacerdote en crisis”. Esta es una concepción notoriamente hipertrofiada del “sacerdocio común” de los fieles (4).

En 1993, el futuro cardenal alemán Walter Kasper confirmó esta interpretación progresista:

“La crisis del sacerdocio en la Iglesia católica tiene múltiples causas… En el fondo de esta crisis encontramos sin duda la acentuación de la eclesiología del pueblo de Dios, llevada a cabo por el mismo Concilio Vaticano II, que muestra claramente la realidad del común sacerdocio de todos los bautizados. Se ha dado un valor excesivo a la vocación específica de los laicos cristianos”. (5)

Esta deformación eclesiástica dio lugar a nuevos conceptos como el de la “concelebración con el pueblo”, que antes era considerado como espectador” sin derecho a la “participación plena, consciente y activa” (SC, 54, 48, 14).

De hecho, la liturgia ortodoxa, el silencio respetuoso, las formas dignas de actuar y de vestir, llevaron tendencialmente a la gente a comprender los misterios de la liturgia.

En el Misal Romano, la traducción del idioma latino y las numerosas notas explicativas proporcionan sólo una comprensión puramente intelectual de lo que estaba ocurriendo.

Al principio, un acólito, un laico -en representación del pueblo- respondía al celebrante (6); posteriormente se dieron respuestas participativas de toda la congregación, a las que se añadió una confesión colectiva de los laicos. (7)

Anteriormente, el sacerdote se interponía entre el crucifijo/tabernáculo y los laicos, afirmando simbólicamente que él era una autoridad acreditada y representante de Dios.

Hoy se dirige al pueblo, dando a entender que el primado sacerdotal es una dignidad sociológica y él es un mero representante de la comunidad.

El olor de la herejía

Así nació el diálogo continuo de las dos partes: los laicos leen el Evangelio, predican la homilía, distribuyen la comunión, se llevan la hostia a la boca como si fueran el sacerdote.

Las notas evocadoras, narrativas y conmemorativas del antiguo “banquete pascual” (SC) de antaño se acentuaron en la nueva liturgia, sugiriendo metódicamente que la Misa es, pura y simplemente, una comida conmemorativa religiosa cristiana.

En última instancia, la vaga comida espiritual sobre la acentuada "mesa de Dios" (SC, 51 – párrafo 605) sirvió para sellar "el encuentro con Cristo", sin referencia al carácter sacrificial de la Misa..

La Misa Novus Ordo se inspiró en el servicio protestante, arriba

En este contexto, no tiene sentido que el invitado principal del banquete esté de espaldas a los demás comensales; además, sería ilógico y extravagante que un invitado ayunara e inexplicable que disfrute de la comida de rodillas, de acuerdo con la hermosa tradición que precedió al Concilio Vaticano II.

Este proceso de protestantización de la Misa quedó claramente reflejado en los cinco datos que siguen:

Prescindir del título “Santo” al referirse a los evangelistas, (8) en base a la Constitución Dogmática Dei Verbum (DV, 18);
Las vestiduras del sacerdote se volvieron similares a las del “pastor” protestante;
El pasado esplendor de la liturgia se empobreció en favor del espíritu igualitario protestante;
De ahí vino el “fomentar las aclamaciones del pueblo” y los nuevos “gestos y posturas del cuerpo” igualitarios (SC, 30);
Una reunión de carácter “mundano” (9), para hablar de eventos parroquiales y sociales, contrario a la vigilancia enseñada en el pasado (I Jn. 5:19; Ap. 21: 27) y avalada por eal bimilenaria Literatura moral católica.

La evolución heterodoxa en curso de la “celebración comunitaria” (SC, 21) implica la negación de la perpetuación real y perenne del tradicional Sacrificio Eucarístico, la unión perfecta de Cristo sacerdote y su Esposa la Iglesia.

En resumen, hoy el celebrante de la Misa se ha convertido en nada más que el ministro que forma parte del sacerdocio común.

1. "Es el sacrificio de la Pascua, en honor del Señor" (Ex. 12:27).
2. 3. 5. 9. Atila Sinke Guimaraes, En las aguas turbias del Concilio Vaticano II, São Paulo: Scor Editora Tecci, 1999, vol. yo, págs. 184-186, 249, 305, 262.
4. La Eclesiología del Vaticano II, Petrópolis: Vozes, 1971, p. 53.
6. 7. 8. Arzobispo Beda Keckeisen, OSB. Misal Cotidiano, Salvador: Tipografia Beneditina Ltda., 1949, pp. 1, 3, 29.

Publicado el 3 de diciembre de 2022

______________________

Temas de Interés Relacionados

______________________

Obras de Interés Relacionadas

Volume I	Volume II	Volume III
Volume IV	Volume V	Volume VI
Volume VII	Volume VIII	Volume IX
Volume X	Volume XI	Special Edition

Traditionalist Issues

Dialogue Mass - CX

Pre & Post Liturgical Movement Attitudes to Minor Orders

Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain

When we compare the traditional view of Minor Orders with the treatment they received at the hands of liturgical reformers in the 20^th century, it becomes evident that the two positions stand in dire contrast to each other. To illustrate this point in greater depth, let us turn again to the exposition of Minor Orders made by Fr. Louis Bacuez who modestly introduced his magnum opus as follows:

Starting the whittling away of respect
for the Minor Orders...

“This little book is a sequel to one we have published on Tonsure. God grant that those who make use of it may conceive a great respect for Minor Orders and prepare for them as they should! The dispositions with which they approach ordination will be the measure of the graces they receive, and on this measure depends, in a great part, the fruit that their ministry will produce. To have a rich harvest the first thing necessary is to sow well: Qui parce seminat parce et metet; et qui seminat in benedictionibus de benedictionibus et metet. (2 Cor. 9:6)” (1)

Little did he realize that when he wrote these words every vestige of respect for the Minor Orders would be whittled away by the concerted efforts of progressivists with a negative and dismissive attitude towards them; and that the Liturgical Movement, which had just begun when he published his book, would be dominated by influential liturgists discussing how to overturn them.

Long before the term “Cancel Culture” was invented, they presented the Minor Orders as a form of class-based oppression perpetrated by a clerical “caste” and as a form of spiritually empty legalism, and they went to great lengths to make them look ridiculous.

Far from showing due respect, this involves quite a considerable degree of contempt, not only for the generations of seminarians who were formed within this tradition, but also for the integrity of the great institution of Minor Orders that had served the Church since Apostolic times. In fact, so great was their animosity towards the Minor Orders that they could hardly wait to strip them of their essential nature as functions of the Hierarchy and turn them into lay ministries.

A tree is known by its fruits

These, then, were the hate-filled dispositions that inspired the progressivist reform, and would determine the graces received and the fruit to be produced by those who exercise the new lay “ministries” as opposed to, and in place of, the traditional Minor Orders.

Fr. Bacuez, who wrote his book in the pontificate of Pius X, could never, of course, have envisaged the demise of the Minor Orders, least of all at the hands of a future Pope. He was concerned lest even the smallest amount of grace be lost in the souls of those preparing for the priesthood:

Blighted fruits from a sick tree

“We shall see, on the Last Day, what injury an ordinand does to himself and what detriment he causes to souls by losing, through his own fault, a part of the graces destined to sanctify his priesthood and render fruitful the fields of the Heavenly Father: Modica seminis detractio non est modicum messis detrimentum. (St. Bernard)” (2)

We do not, however, need to wait till the Last Day to see the effects of a reform that deliberately prevents, as by an act of spiritual contraception, the supernatural graces of the Minor Orders from attaining their God-given end: “to sanctify the priesthood and render fruitful the fields of the Heavenly Father.” For the evidence is all around us that the tree of this reform produced blighted fruits.

First, we note a weakening of the hierarchical structure of the Church and a blurring of the distinction between clergy and laity; second, a “contraceptive” sterility resulting in vocations withering on the vine and below replacement level, seminaries and churches closing down, parishes dying, and the decline in the life of the traditional Catholic Faith as seen in every measurable statistic. The conclusion is inescapable: those who planted this tree and those who now participate in the reform are accomplices in a destructive work.

Advantages of the Minor Orders

A substantial part of Fr. Bacuez’ exposition of the Minor Orders is devoted to the inestimable benefits they bring to the Church. These he divided into the following three categories:

The honor of the priesthood;
The dignity of worship;
The perfection of the clergy.

It is immediately apparent that the Minor Orders were oriented towards the liturgy as performed by the priest and his ministers. In other words, they existed for entirely supernatural ends invested in the priesthood.

A significant and entirely appropriate omission was any mention of active involvement of the laity in the liturgy. Fr. Bacuez’ silence on this issue is an eloquent statement of the mind of the Church that the liturgy is the preserve of the clergy.

We will now take each of his points in turn.

1. The honor of the priesthood

“A statue, however perfect, would never be appreciated by most people, unless it were placed on a suitable pedestal. Likewise the pontificate, which is the perfection of the priesthood, would not inspire the faithful with all the esteem it merits, if it had not beneath it, to give it due prominence, these different classes of subordinate ministers, classes inferior one to another, but the least of which is superior to the entire order of laymen.” (3)

Toppling statues has become popular today:
above, Fr. Serra in central Los Angeles, California

It is an example of dramatic irony that Fr. Bacuez unwittingly chose the theme of a statue supported by a pedestal to illustrate his point. He was not to know that statues of historical figures would become a major source of controversy in the culture wars and identity politics of our age.

Nor could he have foreseen that toppling monuments – both metaphorical and concrete – was to become a favorite sport of the 20^th-century liturgical reformers, their aim being to exalt the status of the laity by “active participation” in clerical roles. And never in his wildest imagination would he have suspected that a future Pope would join in the iconoclastic spree to demolish the Minor Orders about which he wrote with evident pride and conviction.

'Don’t put the priest on a pedestal'

However, the revolutionaries considered that esteem for the Hierarchy and recognition of its superiority over the lay members of the Church was too objectionable to be allowed to survive in modern society. The consensus of opinion among them was that clergy and laity were equals because of their shared Baptism, and placing the priest on a pedestal was not only unnecessary, but detrimental to the interests of the laity.

“Don’t put the priest on a pedestal” was their battle cry. It is the constant refrain that is still doing the rounds among progressivists who refuse to give due honor to the priesthood and insist on accusing the Church of systemic “clericalism.”

But the fundamental point of the Minor Orders – and the Sub-Diaconate – was precisely to be the pedestal on which the priesthood is supported and raised to a position of honor in the Church. When Paul VI’s Ministeria quaedam dismantled the institutional underpinnings of the Hierarchy, the imposing pedestal and columns that were the Minor Orders and Sub-Diaconate were no longer allowed to uphold and elevate the priesthood.

The biblical underpinnings of the Minor Orders

Fr. Bacuez made use of the following passage from the Book of Proverbs:

“Wisdom hath built herself a house; she hath hewn out seven pillars. She hath slain her victims, mingled her wine, and set forth her table.” (9: 1-2)

An ordination to the minor order of exorcist, one of the seven columns

He drew an analogy between “the seven columns of the living temple, which the Incarnate Wisdom has raised up to the Divine Majesty” and all the clerical Orders (four Minor and three Major) that exist for the right worship of God. In this, he was entirely justified. For, in their interpretation of this passage, the Church Fathers concur that it is a foreshadowing of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass performed, as St. Augustine said, by “the Mediator of the New Testament Himself, the Priest after the order of Melchisedek.” (4)

In the 1972 reform, no less than five (5) of the seven columns were brought crashing down from their niches in the Hierarchy to cries of “institutionalized clericalism,” “delusions of grandeur” and “unconscious bias” against the laity.

To further elucidate the affinity of the Minor Orders to the priesthood, Fr. Bacuez gave a brief overview of the cursus honorum that comprised the Orders of Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, Sub-Deacon, Deacon and Priest before going on to explain their interrelatedness:

“These seven powers successively conferred, beginning with the last, are superimposed one upon the other without ever disappearing or coming in conflict, so that in the priesthood, the highest of them all, they are all found. The priest unites them all in his person, and has to exercise them all his life in the various offices of his ministry.” (6)

After Ministeria quaedam, however, these rights and powers are no longer regarded as the unique, personal possession of the ordained, but have been officially redistributed among the baptized. It was not simply a question of changing the title from Orders to “ministries”: the real locus of the revolution was in taking the privileges of the “ruling classes” (the representatives of Christ the King) and giving them to their subjects (the laity) as of “right.”

The neo-Marxist message was, and still is, that this was an act of “restorative justice” for the laity who had been “historically wronged.” For the liturgical progressivists, 1972 was, apparently, the year of “compensation.”

Continued

Louis Bacuez SS, Minor Orders, St Louis MO: B. Herder, 1912, p. x. “He who soweth sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who soweth in blessings shall also reap blessings.”
Ibid., St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Lenten Sermon on the Psalm ‘Qui habitat,’ Sermones de Tempore, In Quadragesima, Preface, § 1: “If, at the time of sowing, a moderate amount of seed has been lost, the harm done to the harvest will not be inconsiderable.”
Ibid., p. 6.
St. Augustine, The City of God, book XVII, chap. 20: "Of David’s Reign and Merit; and of his son Solomon, and of that prophecy relating to Christ, which is found either in those books that are joined to those written by him, or in those that are indubitably his."
These were the four Minor Orders and the Major Order of the Sub-Diaconate.
L. Bacuez, op. cit., p. 5.

Posted December 10, 2021

______________________