Lefebvre's Shadow knows the petit ecclesia

An institution is the lengthened shadow of one man. (Emerson).

Mons Lefebvre's shadow

   (H/T Catholic Family News)




Bishop Fellay on Pope Francis
“We have in front of us a genuine Modernist!” (Ok, then. We have a Bishop calling a Pope a heretic)

Bishop Fellay noted that Pope St. Pius X said at the beginning of his pontificate the ‘son of perdition’ may already be on the earth. He also noted the original prayer to Saint Michael of Pope Leo XIII mentions that Satan aims to establish his seat in Rome. (Um, it's an aim, Bishop.  It is not a thing to be considered doable given the promises of Our Lord and Saviour. This man does not appear to believe the promises of Christ and, thus, he is a heretic in thinking the Church has failed and is teaching heresy. More to follow in the days ahead).

He also spent a good bit of time on the famous and dramatic 1957 interview of Father Fuentes with Sister Lucia, in which she reiterated that “various nations will disappear from the face of the earth,” and that “the devil will do all in his power to overcome souls consecrated to God.” (Yes, but we sort of knew that a long time ago, didn't we?)

...: “When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. (He thanks God that his petit ecclesia refuses communion with the local Bishop and the Pope; and this is considered Tradition?)

“To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”  (OK, then please make public the agreement with Rome that you refused. What are you hiding?)

 “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.” 

“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.
”

“It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”. (He is making it as clear as he can that he and his outfit ain't coming home. They reject an Ecumenical Council and the Mass of the Catholic Church. They are a schism)

“So it is very clear our principle is always the same to stay faithful! We have received a treasure. This treasure does not ‘belong’ to us. We have received this treasure and we have to hand it to the next generation. And what is requested from us is faithfulness, fidelity. We do not have the right to jeopardize these treasures. These are the treasures we have in our hands and we are not going to jeopardize them."  (I assume he is talking about the petit ecclesia established by Mons Lefebvre)

“If the present Pope continues in the way he started, he is going to divide the Church. He’s exploding everything. So people will say: it is impossible that’s he’s the Pope, we refuse him. Others will say [and this is presently Bishop Fellay’s position]: “Wait, consider him as Pope, but don’t follow him. He’s provoking anger. Many people will be discouraged by what people in the Church do” and will be tempted to “throw it all away.”

But, he reminded, God is “much, much bigger than we are. God is able to have the Church continue” and even can work through these imperfect ministers. “But once again”, he repeats, “don’t follow them. Follow them when they say the truth, but when they tell you rubbish, you don’t” follow them on those points. “Any obedience to be true must be related to God. When I say I obey to a person” he should be a “a mirror of God.” But “when mirror tells me contrary of God, it is no longer a mirror, then I don’t follow him.”  (Perhaps Fellay is going to go the way of earlier protestants and propose the existence of an invisible church; who knows?)

Bishop Fellay noted that we cannot simply obey the present Popes without question, because then we would destroy ourselves, we would endanger our Faith. (Preserve the Petit Ecclesia. But if his clerics do not obey him, he excommunicates them)

A follow-up post tomorrow about Mons Lefebvre establishing a petit ecclesia that usurped the Divinely-Constitued Authority delivered to the Pope and Bishops in union with him.

The SSPX is a schism that has arrogantly grasped authority away from Rome. There is absolutely no question that this has happened as a natural consequence of Lefebvre's long legacy of making agreements with legitimate authority and then going back on his word when he did not get his way. 

Here is a link that documents the long, sad, history of his broken agreements.


http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1392

Eye-opening series on the Liturgy

Most soi disant Traditionalists are very familiar with a particular line of argument about the Liturgical Movement and the Normative Mass vs the so-called Traditional 1962 Roman Missal ( a two year transitional Missal putatively encapsulating "The Mass of All Time") and in the post office in their minds are the most-wanted bad guy sinner posters and in the stained glass windows in their minds are the images of the heroic saints.

But, what if this oft-told tale was more polemic than real history and what if the presumptive saints were sinners?

Most soi disant traditionalists are jake with a great centralising Encyclical, Mediator Dei, and so appeals to Tradition in opposition to the Normative Mass have to deal with that enormous fact which, in essence, places within Tradition the reality that the Pope has the authority and power to do whatever’n'hell he desires with the Mass.

I read a great seven post series on the Liturgy at Rad Trad and it is a series that will likely make you think differently about the Mass and especially whether or not it really was – as it is claimed – a blessing for any Christian Catholic in the world to travel to foreign lands and hear Mass in Latin.

Interested ?

Then read this series of posts from the great Rad Trad who has, sadly, discontinued his Blog. The Rad Trad had a great effect upon me in a short amount of time.  He is a real scholar and a gentleman.

In any event, his series will change the way you think about the Liturgy.

http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/04/reasons-for-reform-of-roman-rite-part-i.html

http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/04/reasons-for-reform-of-roman-rite-part.html

http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/04/reasons-for-reform-of-roman-rite-part_7.html

http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/04/reasons-for-reform-of-roman-rite-part_10.html

http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/04/reasons-for-reform-of-roman-rite-part-v.html

http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/04/reasons-for-reform-of-roman-rite-part_23.html

http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/05/reasons-for-reform-of-roman-rite-finale.html

Noe's Nakedness & Curse of Canaan (2)

Yesterday we at ABE Ministry posted two well-known exegetical examples from Catholic tradition that are completely contrary to the arguments advanced by Messrs Bergsma and Hahn.

Today, we copy and paste from Saint Augustine on this event told in Genesis:

Chapter 2.— What Was Prophetically Prefigured in the Sons of Noah.

The things which then were hidden are now sufficiently revealed by the actual events which have followed. For who can carefully and intelligently consider these things without recognizing them accomplished in Christ? Shem, of whom Christ was born in the flesh, means named. And what is of greater name than Christ, the fragrance of whose name is now everywhere perceived, so that even prophecy sings of it beforehand, comparing it in the Song of Songs, Song of Songs 1:3 to ointment poured forth? Is it not also in the houses of Christ, that is, in the churches, that the enlargement of the nations dwells? For Japheth means enlargement. And Ham (i.e., hot), who was the middle son of Noah, and, as it were, separated himself from both, and remained between them, neither belonging to the first-fruits of Israel nor to the fullness of the Gentiles, what does he signify but the tribe of heretics, hot with the spirit, not of patience, but of impatience, with which the breasts of heretics are wont to blaze, and with which they disturb the peace of the saints? But even the heretics yield an advantage to those that make proficiency, according to the apostle's saying, There must also be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 1 Corinthians 11:19Whence, too, it is elsewhere said, The son that receives instruction will be wise, and he uses the foolish as his servant. For while the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about many articles of the Catholic faith, the necessity of defending them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more earnestly; and the question mooted by an adversary becomes the occasion of instruction. However, not only those who are openly separated from the church, but also all who glory in the Christian name, and at the same time lead abandoned lives, may without absurdity seem to be figured by Noah's middle son: for the passion of Christ, which was signified by that man's nakedness, is at once proclaimed by their profession, and dishonored by their wicked conduct. Of such, therefore, it has been said, By their fruits you shall know them. Matthew 7:20 And therefore was Ham cursed in his son, he being, as it were, his fruit. So, too, this son of his, Canaan, is fitly interpreted their movement, which is nothing else than their work. But Shem and Japheth, that is to say, the circumcision and uncircumcision, or, as the apostle otherwise calls them, the Jews and Greeks, but called and justified, having somehow discovered the nakedness of their father (which signifies the Saviour's passion), took a garment and laid it upon their backs, and entered backwards and covered their father's nakedness, without their seeing what their reverence hid. For we both honor the passion of Christ as accomplished for us, and we hate the crime of the Jews who crucified Him. The garment signifies the sacrament, their backs the memory of things past: for the church celebrates the passion of Christ as already accomplished, and no longer to be looked forward to, now that Japheth already dwells in the habitations of Shem, and their wicked brother between them.
But the wicked brother is, in the person of his son (i.e., his work), the boy, or slave, of his goodbrothers, when good men make a skillful use of bad men, either for the exercise of their patience or for their advancement in wisdom. For the apostle testifies that there are some who preach Christ from no pure motives; but, says he, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. Philippians 1:18 For it is Christ Himself who planted the vine of which the prophet says, The vine of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel; Isaiah 5:7 and He drinks of its wine, whether we thus understand that cup of which He says, Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of? Matthew 20:22 and, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, Matthew 26:39 by which He obviously means His passion. Or, as wine is the fruit of the vine, we may prefer to understand that from this vine, that is to say, from the race of Israel, He has assumed flesh and blood that He might suffer; and he was drunken, that is, He suffered; and was naked, that is, His weakness appeared in His suffering, as the apostle says, though He was crucified through weakness. 2 Corinthians 13:4 Wherefore the same apostle says, The weakness of God is stronger than men; and the foolishness of God is wiser than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25 And when to the expression he was naked Scripture adds in his house, it elegantly intimates that Jesus was to suffer the cross and death at the hands of His own household, His own kith and kin, the Jews. This passion of Christ is only externally and verbally professed by the reprobate, for what they profess, they do not understand. But the elect hold in the inner man this so great mystery, and honor inwardly in the heart this weakness and foolishness of God. And of this there is a figure in Ham going out to proclaim his father's nakedness; while Shem and Japheth, to cover or honor it, went in, that is to say, did it inwardly.
These secrets of divine Scripture we investigate as well as we can. All will not accept our interpretation with equal confidence, but all hold it certain that these things were neither done nor recorded without some foreshadowing of future events, and that they are to be referred only to Christ and His church, which is the city of God, proclaimed from the very beginning of human history by figures which we now see everywhere accomplished. From the blessing of the two sons of Noah, and the cursing of the middle son, down to Abraham, or for more than a thousand years, there is, as I have said, no mention of any righteous persons who worshipped God. I do not therefore conclude that there were none; but it had been tedious to mention every one, and would have displayed historical accuracy rather than prophetic foresight. The object of the writer of these sacred books, or rather of the Spirit of God in him, is not only to record the past, but to depict the future, so far as it regards the city of God; for whatever is said of those who are not its citizens, is given either for her instruction, or as a foil to enhance her glory. Yet we are not to suppose that all that is recorded has some signification; but those things which have no signification of their own are interwoven for the sake of the things which are significant. It is only the ploughshare that cleaves the soil; but to effect this, other parts of the plough are requisite. It is only the strings in harps and other musical instruments which produce melodious sounds; but that they may do so, there are other parts of the instrument which are not indeed struck by those who sing, but are connected with the strings which are struck, and produce musical notes. So in this prophetic history some things are narrated which have no significance, but are, as it were, the framework to which the significant things are attached.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm

One either can follow the substantial, beautiful, spiritual, and excellent exegesis of a Catholic Doctor of the Church or one can believe the carnal claims of Messrs Bergsma and Hahn that this particular part of Holy Writ is about incestuous sex.

Well, this is about as easy a choice as is possible; for we at ABE Ministry that is. 

We know from experience that the vast majority of Christians will remain ignorant of the exegesis of Fr Haydock, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Saint Augustine but will embrace and sow the earth with the claims made by Dr. Hahn.

C'est la vie. That is the way of the world for now.

Of course we at ABE Ministry will send our info to Dr. Hahn's Research Assistant and we will prepare a packet of info for Dr Hahn when he is next in our area - January 25, 2014 at the Cathedral of St. Ignatius of Loyola in Palm Beach County, Florida and we will remain confident that what we have done will fall on deaf ears.

Noe's Nakedness & Curse of Canaan (1)

We at ABE Ministry decided to devote a post to this topic because it arose as a question in the comment section of this Crummy Blog.

Let's get right to it...Genesis 9:20-27


20 And Noe a husbandman began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard.
21 And drinking of the wine was made drunk, and was uncovered in his tent.
22 Which when Cham the father of Chanaan had seen, to wit, that his father's nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without.
23 But Sem and Japheth put a cloak upon their shoulders, and going backward, covered the nakedness of their father: and their faces were turned away, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noe awaking from the wine, when he had learned what his younger son had done to him,
25 He said: Cursed be Chanaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said: Blessed be the Lord God of Sem, be Chanaan his servant.
27 May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Sem, and Chanaan be his servant.

A Catholic Bible commentary compiled by the late Rev. Fr. George Leo Haydock, following the Douay-Rheims Bible.

Ver. 20. A husbandman. Hebrew, literally "a man of the earth." (Haydock) --- To till, perhaps with a plough, which he is said to have invented. (Menochius)
Ver. 21. Drunk. Noe by the judgment of the fathers was not guilty of sin, in being overcome by wine; because he knew not the strength of it. (Challoner) --- Wine, Though vines had grown from the beginning, the art of making wine seems not to have been discovered; and hence Noe's fault is much extenuated, and was at most only a venial sin. (Menochius) --- His nakedness prefigured the desolate condition of Christ upon the cross, which was a scandal to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles. But by this folly we are made wise; we are redeemed, and enjoy the name of Christians. Sem and Japheth represent the multitude of believers, Cham and Chanaan the audacity and impudence of all unbelievers. (St. Augustine, contra Faust. xii. 24; City of God xvi. 2; St. Cyprian, ep. 63.[62.?] ad Cæcil.) (Worthington) --- Like the Manichees, modern heretics are very free in condemning many innocent actions of the Patriarchs. (Haydock)
Ver. 23. Neither ought we to be so quick-sighted in discovering the faults of any: which we often represent as real, when they are only apparent. (Haydock)
Ver. 25. Cursed be Chanaan. The curses, as well as the blessings, of the patriarchs were prophetical: and this in particular is here recorded by Moses, for the children of Israel, who were to possess the land of Chanaan. But why should Chanaan be cursed for his father's fault? The Hebrews answer, that he being then a boy was the first that saw his grandfather's nakedness, and told his father Cham of it; and joined with him in laughing at it: which drew upon him, rather than upon the rest of the children of Cham, this prophetical curse. (Challoner) --- Theodoret, q. 57. The children of Sem executed this sentence, in exterminating many of the Chanaanites under Josue. (Worthington) --- They perished for their own wickedness, which God foresaw, and revealed to Noe. Cham was severely punished by this denunciation of his children's misery. See Milton, xi. 754. xii. 27; Deuteronomy ix. 4. (Haydock)
Ver. 27. Enlarge Japheth. His name signifies latitude or enlargement. (Worthington) --- May he, God, according to some; but more probably Japheth, of whom the rest of the sentence speaks. (Haydock) --- This was verified by the extensive dominion of the children of Japheth, both in the islands and on the continent; more particularly, when the Romans subdued the Jews, and posterity of Sem. (Menochius) --- Referring all this to the Church, the Gentiles entered in, upon the refusal of the Jews, though preachers of that nation were the instruments of their conversion. Chanaan, in the mean time, cherished his slavery, and seeks not to obtain the liberty and glory of the sons of God, in which he is a figure of heretics, (Haydock) who serve to make Christians more upon their guard, and by persecuting them, exercise their patience and increase their crown. (Worthington)

And then ABE Ministry decided to do some checking around because, it was claimed, Dr. Hahn's exegesis was logical whereas Fr. Haydock's presumably was not.

Here is what ABE Ministry located at Dr Hahn's collection of articles ...

http://www.scotthahn.com/academic-articles.html

NOAH’S NAKEDNESS AND THE CURSE ON CANAAN (GENESIS 9:20–27)

JOHN SIETZE BERGSMA 

SCOTT WALKER HAHN 

http://www.salvationhistory.com/documents/scripture/JBL%20Gen9.pdf

We invite you to read it before proceeding... 

OK. Were you surprised at all to discover the absence of any reference to Douay Rheims and the notes assembled by Rev Haydock?

Messrs Bergsma and Hahn aver;

Exegetes since antiquity have identified Ham’s deed as either voyeurism, castration, or paternal incest.  

And they proceed to eliminate all (well, not all as we shall see) but incest.

Were you at all surprised to see no reference to, say, The Catholic Encyclopedia?

Cham

(A.V. Ham). Son of Noah and progenitor of one of the three great races of men whose ethnographical table is given by Genesis 10. Wherever the three sons of Noah are enumerated in the Bible, Cham is placed between Sem and Japhet. We may gather, however, from Genesis 9:24 that this enumeration is not based on their age, since Cham is there spoken of as the "younger son" of Noah, as compared, apparently, with both his brothers. The only incident of the life of Cham after the deluge, which is recorded in the Bible, is that related in Genesis 9:21-24. Cham sees his father under the influence ofwine lying naked in his tent. He tells his brothers, who respectfully cover the patriarch. The sequel makes it plain that Cham was, on this occasion, guilty of great irreverence. For when Noah hears of the conduct of his sons he blesses Shem and Japhet, with their posterity, and he pronounces a curse, not on Cham, but on his son Chanaan and his descendants, predicting that they will be the servants of their bretheren. (For a fuller treatment of this point see Chanaan, Chanaanites.)

The Chamites

The natives and tribes which descent from Cham are enumerated in Genesis 10:6-20. They are divided into four great families: Chus, Mesram, Phuth, and Chanaan. The Cushites are found in the valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris, in Arabia, and also in Africa. Mesram is Egypt. Phuth, less known, seems to have occupied regions west of Egypt, particularly Libya. Chanaan comprised the numerous tribes whose country was subsequently occupied by Israel. The Chamites were, consequently, spread over an immense extent of territory. They founded the greatest empires of antiquity, Assyria,Babylonia, Egypt, Phoenicia. In Asia they were early replaced or subjugated by Semites. In Africathey have been likewise overcome, in the course of time, by the races of Sem and Japhet. This subjection has meant, in general, the triumph of a higher civilization, purer morals, and a more spiritual religion. (See Lenormant, "Hist. ancienne de l'Orient", I, 96 sq.)


Well, the two authors did not rule-out this as orthodox exegesis and for good reason; they never even addressed it as a possibility even though the two sources I cited are well known among older Christian Catholics.

Is it possible that the two experts were ignorant of the Douay Rheims notes and the Catholic Encyclopedia entry?

It would seem so. 

In a follow-up post, ABE Ministry will copy and paste from the work of a monumental Catholic Genius and a Doctor of the Church and whose exegesis of this event they must also be ignorant of.

Strange days indeed.

Catena Aurea contra Fourth Cup claims

7:30am, 9:00am, 11:Dr. Han avers that DR00amDr Hahn

BEDE; When the rites of the old Passover were finished, He passed to the new, in order, that is, to substitute the Sacrament of His own Body and Blood, for the flesh and blood of the lamb. Wherefore there follows: And as they did eat, Jesus took bread; that is, in order to show that He Himself is that person to whom the Lord swore, You are a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec. There follows: And blessed, and broke it.

BEDE; This may be also taken literally, for from the hour of supper up to the time of resurrection He was about to drink no wine. Afterwards He partook both of meat and drink, as Peter testifies, Who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

BEDE; Having finished the rites of the old Passover, He passes on to the new, which He desires the Church to celebrate in memory of His redemption, substituting for the flesh and blood of the lamb, the Sacrament of His own Flesh and Blood in the figure of the bread and wine, being made a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. …

BEDE; For this reason then the Apostles communicated after supper, because it was necessary that the typical passover should be first completed, and then they should pass on to the Sacrament of the true Passover. But now in honor of so great a Sacrament, the masters of the Church think right that we should first be refreshed with the spiritual banquet, and afterward with the earthly

THEOPHYL. But how is our Lord said to sit down, whereas the Jews eat the Passover standing?

But Dr. Hahn claims that Jesus followed the Order (Seder) which was actually established by Messias-Deniers after the destruction of the City of Deicide.

How can all of this clear and convincing evidence from Catholic Tradition be cast aside which such a cavalier look-what-I-discovered egoism?

Well, I have tried my level best to show where Dr. Hahn is wrong. I have nothing left to write on this particular topic as it is crystal clear he is in error and belaboring facts will not pierce an Ideology nor curtail the hunger for novelty amongst the Hahn-verts.

As for Dr. Hahn his own self. I have seen him only once in person and I have read a few of his books and so I know enough about his errors in serious matters to not trust him in any matters.

I will send what I have discovered to Dr. Hahn's R.A. with the expectation that it will have zero effect on either of them.

C'est la vie.

Fourth Cup Thesis Email Exchange

After IANS was amongst the Hahn-Verts, he emailed Dr Hahn with a few questions and observations and here is the result of their exchanges. The exchange abruptly ended after IANS made this observation;

I was shocked that you refused permission to post our email exchange.

I am courageous enough to post what I think about Dr Hahn but you are not.

I wonder why?

It can't be because any personal information has been revealed or any insults have been leveled etc

I conclude on a positive note that, hopefully,  that Dr Hahn is having second thoughts about his Fourth Cup thesis.

IANS will post in his usual color and summarise the response from Dr. Hahn's Research Assistant in the usual purple he uses when quoting others.

Subject: Dear Dr. Hahn

IANS was at your 08/31/13 series of talks in St. Therese de Lisieux Catholic Church in Wellington, Florida and because there was no Q & A IANS was unable to ask you this question but Jocelyne Carrigan was kind enough to agree to act as the conduit through which IANS might contact you.

Before registering my question, IANS wants to begin by congratulating you on such a great and interesting series of talks. IANS know you have heard such praise before but it must never get old hearing about how enjoyable it is to hear you speak for several hours.

My questions are about the Fourth Cup and IANS begins by noting that it is fairly well conceded by authorities that the Seder was composed after Titus destroyed Jerusalem - 70 A.D. - and so it could not have been a Seder  that Jesus and His Apostles were celebrating; and thus the question of a fourth cup seems superfluous.

The Seder (Order) Meal was developed by Rabbinical Judaism after Titus had destroyed the City of Deicide as this Jewish author states:

Almost everyone doing serious work on the early history of Passover traditions, including Joseph Tabory, Israel Yuval, Lawrence Hoffman, and the father-son team of Shmuel and Ze’ev Safrai, has rejected Finkelstein’s claims for the great antiquity of the bulk of the Passover Haggadah. What is particularly significant about this consensus is that these scholars are not radical skeptics. These scholars believe that, generally speaking, we can extract historically reliable information from rabbinic sources. But as demonstrated by the late Baruch Bokser in his book The Origins of the Seder, practically everything preserved in the early rabbinic traditions concerning the Passover Seder brings us back to the time immediately following the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.12It’s not that rabbinic literature cannot be trusted to tell us about history in the first century of the Common Era. It’s that rabbinic literature—in the case of the Seder—does not even claim to be telling us how the Seder was performed before the destruction of the Temple.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/was-jesus-last-supper-a-seder/#end02

Further background

http://tinyurl.com/kvtv5u6

http://judaism.about.com/od/passover/a/seder_golinkin.htm

What we do know from Catholic Tradition is that Jesus did not just lead His Apostles in the celebration of a meal but a passover meal followed by the Insititution of the Eucharistic Sacrificial Meal (to stay with the meal analogy for the moment).

Here is the great commentary of Cornelius a Lapide on that question:

Council of Trent (Sess. 22, c. 1): “After Christ had celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the sons of Israel sacrificed in memory of their going out of Egypt, He instituted a new Passover, that He Himself should be immolated by the Church (ab ecclesia), by means of (per) the priests, under (sub) visible signs, in memory of His passage from this world to the Father, when He redeemed us by the shedding of His Blood, and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us to His Kingdom.”

http://tinyurl.com/k34adv7

IANS is sure none of this material is new to you but it sure would be new to the vast audiences who hear you with such fervent credulity and who take it on faith that you are a man to be relied upon for all things Catholic.

That being the case, IANS wonders why it is you repeatedly make this presentation in public when it is contrary to Catholic Tradition.

Thank you for writing us. My name is ... a research assistant for Dr. Hahn. Unfortunately, due to the large quantity of emails and letters he receives, he is unable to respond to each individually. 

Nevertheless, I will do my best to help you out.

You have asked a really good question. While it is true that we do not have direct access to the Jewish Passover liturgy at the time of Jesus, it is a rather bold assertion to claim that the Passover Seder at the time of Jesus is as inaccessible as the sources you cite state. I hope to demonstrate that below.

(And then he cites a Dr. Hahn book that he reiterated in his lectures and the pattern of response is set in stone where I ask a question refuting claims made in Dr Hahn's lectures and/or books and the response is a copy and paste from Dr. Hahn's books; larded as they are with protestant sources.)

I hope this helps, .... Please let us know if you any more questions. Know that you are in our prayers. Please keep the Hahns and their ministries in yours as well.

Dear .... Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your generous and lengthy email. I've been out of town.

I begin by asking permission to post it on my crummy Blog as a response to my Blog post re the Fourth Cup Thesis of Dr. Hahn.

It seems to me this response is a reiteration of that which has been presented to the public by Dr. Hahn in many forums and in his books and articles rather than specific responses to questions I asked.

I was learnt that exegesis within Catholic Tradition (Pope Leo XIII) concerns itself with faith/morals and that the exegete must work in continuity with Tradition, not promote personal novelties, and be within the pale of a moral unanimity of interpretation which is why I cited both Trent and Cornelius A Lapide against these Fourth Cup claims for Dr. Hahn's interesting, and, sadly, consequential, exegesis is a novelty within Catholic Tradition and The Fourth Cup Thesis has specific problems in and of itself.

There is the matter of the Fourth Cup which, presumably, was consumed by Jesus on the Cross but Jesus was given vinegar, not wine, while He was on the Cross, and I am sure Dr. Hahn is aware of the two different Greek words identifying each and Jesus was not at that moment drinking wine with His Apostles at that moment which voids Dr. Hahn's claim that He did.

It is, at best, problematic to claim that the action of Jesus during the Last Supper had much in common with the Seder Ceremony created for Rabbinical Judaism by those who were Messias-Deniers.

Of what use if that claim? How does it lead we Christians to understand Jesus better? If the Seder Meal was crucial to a greater or more profound understanding of Jesus by those who do not deny that He is the Messias, why wasn't it made plain in the Gospels that Jesus was adhering to the old Order (Seder) while establishing His New Covenant?

The, sad, reality is the claims of the Fourth Cup have led many Christian Catholics to begin celebrating Seder Meals in clear opposition to what Saint Thomas Aquinas warned us about and in clear violation of the First Commandment.

The Fourth Cup Thesis is a novelty that is in opposition to Trent and a Lapide (which both suggest two or more meals, not one) and it is a novelty that has intensified our Inertia Into Indifferentism.

I know this response will read as rather harsh (and, prolly, foolhardy) but I do not find that recent Biblical Scholarship is, in this matter, any way persuasive, say nothing about definitive, when compared to the exegesis within Catholic Tradition.

Were such an exegesis (really, I think it modern eisegesis) defensible, where is it to be found within Catholic Tradition?

That is, where were such claims being made by The Early Church Fathers, the Saints of the First One Thousand Years, the great intellectual Saint Giants of the High Middle Ages, about this putative Fourth Cup?

What I see - with my, admittedly, very limited intellect, ability, and knowledge - is not even a hint that such a claim is to be found. 

Thank you so much for your patient and comprehensive response.

It is good to hear back from you. Please do not post my response on your blog (thank you for asking!). I will do my best to respond to your last email and clarify some things I said in the first email. I think I understand more clearly what you principle concern is.I hope this helps further our dialogue, .... 

(And the lengthy response is simply to claim that Dr. Hahn is right - well, what did I expect from his R.A? - and there are more quotes from him and his books but when I responded to his second missive thusly;

I was shocked that you refused permission to post our email exchange.

I am courageous enough to post what I think about Dr Hahn but you are not.

I wonder why?

It can't be because any personal information has been revealed or any insults have been leveled etc

I conclude on a positive note that, hopefully,  that Dr Hahn is having second thoughts about his Fourth Cup thesis.

that was the end of the exchange.  I am prolly wildly in error in hoping Dr. Hahn is having second thoughts about his Fourth Cup Thesis.

C'est la vie.