Rome-SSPX Doctrinal Discussions

On October 26th the Holy See entered into dialog with representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X. They began by identifying issues of contention, and the one on the list that jumped out at me was the Missal of Paul VI. I have recently been made aware of a study the SSPX did on the new missal titled The Problem of the Liturgical Reform. While it is an interesting read, I am mostly left with the impression that it is an attempt to generate something to gripe about all while sounding erudite than actually having a legitimate beef and knowing what they are talking about.

For instance, a claim is made that the traditional theology concerning the holy Sacrifice of the Mass is on redemption - the economy of sin and satisfaction - and thus in the Pian Missal you find a natural emphases on the Passion of our Lord. In their examination of the Pauline Missal, they claim that there is a "new theology" of the Liturgy, which has a broader scope of redemption that not only encompasses the suffering and death of Christ, but his Resurrection and Ascension. This "new theology" emphasizes all three. Somehow this supposed perversion has allegedly fucked up contemporary Catholics understanding of sin as an offense against God and twisted our understanding of blah blah blah...

Who are they kidding? They are just spinning nonsense. Shit like this:

If we consider Christ’s work insofar as it benefits men, the death on the Cross is still the most important of His actions. The Resurrection certainly contributes to our salvation, notably as an example for us, but classic theology maintains that only the death of Christ—and not His Resurrection—has a meritorious and satisfactory value. Thus for classic theology, it is the Passion rather than the Resurrection which sums up our salvation.

While I would not argue that the Passion of our Lord is the meritorious cause of salvation, I do take issue with viewing its work as distinct from the Resurrection. By separating one from the other they completely devalue the Resurrection, saying it primarily contributes to our salvation "as an example for us". What kind of fucking "example" is it? If it is simply an "example", why is Easter the most solemn day of the year? Dying he destroyed OUR death, rising he restored OUR life. What value does his Passion have if he does not rise from the dead and break the dominion of sin and death? In Holy Communion we do not receive the dead flesh and blood of Christ, but his risen and glorified body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Savior. In one of the first conciliar statements on the Eucharist and the Liturgy the Council of Ephesus said the following:

Proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, and professing his return to life from the dead and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody worship [sacrificii servitutem] in the churches and so proceed to the mystical thanksgivings and are sanctified having partaken of the holy flesh [corpus] and precious blood of Christ, the saviour of us all.

The Fathers of Ephesus shoot down their bullshit theory that the "classical" theology of the Mass is an emphasis on the Passion apart from and over the Resurrection and Ascension and the study itself reveals them as the blithering imbeciles they truly are.