Promiscuity of Hosts &
Hermeneutics of Rupture

Dear TIA,

I would once more like to sincerely thank TIA for its analysis of the SSPX's issues with the Vatican II Conciliar Church.

There is one thing I hope you can clarify, though. Mr. Guimaraes points out that the Extraordinary Form of Mass offered at diocesan churches satisfies ones Sunday obligation to hear Mass.

There are a few issues that could come in to play here, but the main question for me is: if the conditions are correct for a valid Mass, what about the consecrated Hosts - if in fact they are consecrated - in the corporal that are left over?

Here in my city the pastor long ordained before Vatican II sees no problem mixing these consecrated Hosts with hosts for a N.O. Mass or giving Holy Communion in the hand the very next day at a N.O. Mass.

Is it a sacrilege to mix the two kinds of hosts those from a N.O. Mass and those from the True Mass of all time that transcends time?

     Padre Pio, pray for us

     God bless Mary keep

     S.M.


TIA responds:

Dear S.M.,

Thank you for your kind words on our work.

The question of the validity of the Tridentine Masses said with permission of the Diocesan Bishop, and the question of mixing Hosts of these Masses with the Novus Ordo Masses said in the same church, in principle should be dealt with separately.

Regarding the former, if the priest is validly ordained and says the Tridentine Mass according to the rubrics, his Mass is valid, the Host is consecrated and the faithful can benefit from those Masses to fulfill his obligation. This is the simple rule, without considering any special circumstances.

The question of mixing Hosts consecrated in these Masses with Hosts of a Novus Ordo Mass, which is a special circumstance that must be considered, causes a clear embarrassment to those - like us - who are sure that the Novus Ordo Mass has the flavor of Protestantism. Even if we work with the hypothesis that the N.O. Masses are valid, the case of making both Masses look the same, by sharing the consecrated Hosts, clearly favors relativism.

Other examples of similar embarrassments are:

• Attending Tridentine Masses said in Protestant or Unitarian temples, whose ministers rented the building to traditionalists for economical or practical reasons.
  
• Attending Tridentine Masses said in ecumenical chapels where false religions also have their religious services.

Although these three kinds of Masses said by validly ordained priests according to the rubrics of St. Pius V are valid Masses, these are circumstantial reasons not to attend them. Those who attend those Masses give a strong impression of being adepts of religious indifferentism, i.e., that they consider all religious services said there to have equal value before God, be they Traditional Masses, Novus Ordo Masses, Protestant services, Unitarian sessions or others.

Those who attend these Masses must seriously weigh such inconveniences with the other options they may have at hand to fulfill their Mass obligations. If they have other options without similar inconveniences, they may choose these and thus avoid giving the scandal of favoring relativism. If they have no other option, they may go to these Masses to fulfill their obligations.

The specific question of having Hosts of Tridentine Masses and Novus Ordo Masses mixed together must be dealt with by speaking with the priest. If he is a traditional priest, he may be asked by the faithful to avoid consecrating more Hosts than necessary for his Mass, or to consume those not used after Mass. If he is a regular diocesan priest, like the one you described, there is little to do. Catholics aware of the possibility of the lack of respect, grave inconvenience or sacrilege should make a conditional act of reparation. But we believe that, even in this situation, the faithful may attend that Mass to fulfill his Sunday obligation if no other option is available.

We hope this answer will help you and other Catholics in these difficult times of general apostasy.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondence desk

TIA,

Thank you for the article on Hermeneutics of Rupture.

I think the very word hermeneutics is part of the Vatican II tactic to confuse. What does the word mean? That was my question. I asked several friends, and they did not know how to define it for me. They just kept repeating that today we have the hermeneutics of continuity. Now, thanks to your article, I will tell them that it is, more properly speaking, the hermeneutics of rupture.

Anyway, I went to the online dictionary and found out that in religious studies, hermeneutics is the study of the theory and practice of interpretation. Biblical hermeneutics would be the study of the interpretation of the Bible. The terms exegesis and hermeutics supposedly can be used interchangeably. However, hermeneutics is a more widely defined discipline of interpretation theory which encompass all forms of communication: written, verbal, and nonverbal. Exegesis on the other hand, focuses primarily on the written text.

So why not just use exegesis, instead of this new word hermeneutics? It seems to be, as I said, it is a term to confuse. Also, it can expand to cover the historical method and other modern interpretative methods, rather than just the traditional study of the text. Well, I for one won’t be saying the hermeneutics of continuity anymore. What we are experiencing today in the Church is the hermeneutics of rupture. Very well said, Mr. Guimaraes.

     Viva Cristo Rey!

     P.H.

Dear TIA,

I applaud Atila's comments, with his usual on-target perspicacity, concerning Cardinal Koch's blaming Hans Kung for the break of the Vatican II Church with the Church of all times. And I enjoyed this phrase especially:

"Cardinal Koch as a sycophant minion..."

A friend of mine calls the adherents to the SSPX "Fellay's minions," and nothing tastes better than a fillet mignon!

     P.B.

Dear TIA,

Pope Benedict wishes us to apply a "hermeneutic of continuity" to help us accept that there is an organic development between the pre-Vatican II Church and the Conciliar Church.

Here is a 5 minute clip from the end of "Come to the Stable" with Loretta Young, 1949. The male protagonist had refused to let the nuns build a hospital near his estate. The last couple of minutes shows the end of Mass - it is impossible to believe there is any sort of "continuity" between this and the Novus Ordo

     Peace,

     Frank Rega