Sunday, February 21, 2010

Opus Judei Glosses on the Talmudic Novus Ordo "Offertory"

An "Opus Dei" priest by the name Juan José Silvestre Valór of "Opus Dei's" "Pontifical University of the Holy Cross" has written an exceedingly strained article which endeavors to "show the spiritual richness" of the "simplified" "Offertory" of the Novus Ordo Mass. "Simplified" is how this priest euphemizes the complete replacement of the traditional Offertory.

I call attention specifically to the cuckoo egg often described as "Jewish table blessings" of the Novus Ordo "Offertory" which are of talmudic origin. Reading the article, one might note that the author cites (mostly modern) supporting sources for nearly every point made, but when he arrives at the "Jewish table blessings" footnotes are absent and the artifice is at its height.

One might ask, can't this professor of liturgy at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross and consultor to the Office of the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff show us from scripture or some other authoritative source that these "Jewish table blessings" were part of the ancient Passover ritual as he suggests? And shouldn't he first establish the factuality of his suggestion that the Israelites recited these benedictions at Passover before claiming that they "anticipated the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ" and that "the definitive reality of the sacrifice of Christ interpenetrate(s)" them? On what foundation, other than his own ethereal prose, does he rest these mighty claims? None.

This is the "work" of "Opus Dei:" making that which is alien seem intrinsic. This is not the work of God. This is lying fruit from an organization whose title is itself a deception.

See the Novus Ordo "Preparation of the Gifts" and the talmudic benedictions for bread and wine contrasted with the traditional Offertory of the Latin Mass here:

Talmudic Benedictions in the Novus Ordo Mass

In 2008 traditional Catholics were celebrating Benedict XVI's "shakeup" of his liturgical commission with new appointees including the "Opus Dei" author of the above-referenced article, and members of the homosexual predator founded "Legionaries of Christ":

Liturgical shakeup: Benedict XVI replaces all members of Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff

Also see:

Opus Judei

Opus Judei Founder, Escriba Preached Kabbalistic Doctrine, Tikkun Olam

14 comments:

HallnOates said...

I would add the tags:

Opus Dei

Opus Judei

Josemaria Escriva

Escriva

Escriba

Anonymous said...

If you accept the New Mass as valid and the post Vatican II popes as genuine, then there's no problem with these Offertory prayers. A true pope would not endorse a rite of Mass that lacks doctrinal rectitude.

Maurice Pinay said...

If you accept the New Mass as valid and the post Vatican II popes as genuine, then there's no problem with these Offertory prayers. A true pope would not endorse a rite of Mass that lacks doctrinal rectitude.

***

This is not a question of doctrine. There are doctrinally innocuous passages in the Satanic Bible for that matter. Shall we replace sections of the Mass with those? It would make no difference. The Talmud is as foreign and hostile to Christianity as the Satanic Bible. To replace sections of the traditional liturgy with passages from either, no matter how innocuous they may seem in themselves, would be an equally grievous offense.

Anonymous said...

The Talmud is as foreign and hostile to Christianity as the Satanic Bible. To replace sections of the traditional liturgy with passages from either, no matter how innocuous they may seem in themselves, would be an equally grievous offense.
-----------------------------------
Precisely what I was trying to say, Maurice Pinay, in an indirect way. How could a true Catholic allow this Talmudic/Satanic garbage enter the Catholic liturgy?

" Anonymous,February 23, 2010 3:07 AM "

Anonymous said...

I don't think it is so much the type of mass that is the problem . I think it is that Judaics have Christians bent over on their knees , and not in the prayer sense .

Christians are sheep like and Jews are their wolves . Christians seem to like it that way . Call it the Christian complex.

I think that God Himself is embarassed of the snivelling spineless flock that Christians have long been .

Anonymous said...

"I think that God Himself is embarassed of the snivelling spineless flock that Christians have long been ."

I think God is most embarrassed by the empty headed pagan drivel that Christianity passes of as God's truth.

Anonymous said...

I think God is most embarrassed by the empty headed pagan drivel that Christianity passes of as God's truth.
-----------------------------------

So God is embarrassed by Christianity! Then why did/does He favor it with such astounding miracles? Could you please explain what you mean by " pagan drivel ". For a start, Christianity does not insist on circumcision.

Anonymous said...

Psalm 88:53 reads: “Blessed be the Lord for evermore. So be it. So be it.” “Blessed be God . . . “ and “Blessed are you, Lord” (or “Blessed be the Lord . . . “) are found numerous times in the Old and New Testaments (Psalm 65:20, Psalm 67:36, 2 Maccabees 1:17, Psalm 17:47, Psalm 113, 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3, etc.). The inclusion of these acclamations are not remotely pagan nor are they a corruption of Christian doctrine – and their inclusion doesn’t “Talmudize” the Mass. Is the Psalter “Talmudized” because it contains these acclamations? Of course not.

Perusing my pre-Vatican II/pre-Bugnini/pre-Apostasy (cough) St. Andrew Daily Missal (back from the glory days of the Church when there were no problems in the world and there was no sin, and people didn’t have Asian neighbors) I read the following from the Secret for the Votive Mass of the Holy Angels (p. 1747): “We offer to the, O Lord, a sacrifice of PRAISE . . .”. It’s funny – no, scratch that – it’s pathetically disgusting how I had to hear ad infinitum and ad nauseam from “Traditionalists” (i.e., dilettantes) that the notion of the Mass as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving was a judaeo-masonic coup designed to diminish belief in the Real Presence – and yet that very notion was expressed in my pre-Vatican II/pre-Bugnini/pre-Apostasy (cough) St. Andrew Daily Missal (back from the days when puppies never aged).

Heimbichner’s “proof” reminds me of Michael Davies hyper-feminized hand wringing over the new rite of priestly ordination. Davies contended that the new rite was faulty because the priest didn’t vow “to offer sacrifice” as was said during the old rite. However, the sacraments (as they are called in the Western or Latin Church) are called the “mysteries” in the Eastern Churches. In the new rite, the priest vows to “celebrate Christ’s mysteries” – a vow that clearly encompasses the totality of priestly power. Yet Davies, like a prideful pied piper, led numerous “Trads” over the cliff of error and schism with that stupid charge. In the pre-Vatican II/pre-Bugnini/pre-Apostasy (cough) St. Andrew Daily Missal (back from a time when women did yard work in gowns) the Secret for the Mass for the Conferring of Holy Orders (p. 1762) reads: “We beseech thee, O Lord, perform by Thy MYSTERIES, that we may worthily offer up these gifts to thee. Through Our Lord.”

On p. 966 of the pre-Vatican II/pre-Bugnini/pre-Apostasy (cough) St. Andrew Daily Missal in the red Missal notes under the heading “The Incensing of the Offerings and of the Faithful” we read: “At High Mass the OFFERINGS of BREAD and WINE are incensed . . .”. That’s right, bread and wine are offered during the offertory. The Body and Blood of Our Lord do not become present until AFTER the Epiclesis and Consecration. Traditionalists who supposedly know so much about the faith don’t know this?

It is the most basic principle of sacramental theology that where Christ did not specify the form of a sacrament, the Church has the right to determine it. Christ instituted the Mass with “This is My Body. This is the Chalice of My Blood.” Above and beyond that, the Church – as Christ’s Mystical Body – has the right to promulgate, alter, develop, or change the rite.

The only “change agents” are the Hoffmans, Heimbichners, Pinays, Williamsons, Lefebvres, Davies, Thucs, Coomaraswamys, and Steves in Vista who fail to comprehend the mind, mystery, and majesty of the Church and who have adorned themselves with phylacteries of their own design. When you’re a hammer, however, every problem becomes a nail. If one intends to lay every problem of the world (both pre- and post-Incarnation), at the foot of the Talmud, one will never be able to think clearly. The hammer of Talmud-hunting compels one to blame the Talmud for a broken waffle iron rather than age and use. Are Toyota engineers studying the Talmud? That’s clearly the most important question.

Maurice Pinay said...

The point, which you have labored mightily to obfuscate is that Post-Christ rabbinic benedictions have no place in the Catholic Mass. If you argue otherwise only God can help you.

Anonymous said...

No obfuscation. It is you -- and Craig Heimbechner in his "scholarship" -- who have labored mightily to "see" Talmudisms where none exist. As was clear from my first paragraph, acclamations such as you "Blessed are you, Lord . . ." originate in the Psalter. I didn't know the Psalter was a "post-Christ" rabbinic benediction handbook. Fancy that! I suppose all of the monks who took up the custom of laus perennis, the perpetual recitation of the psalms tweny-four hours a day, were in reality change agents (or closet templars, or freemasonic precursors).

Maurice Pinay said...

Dear anonymous, if there was even one instance of the benediction formula used in the Novus Ordo, "Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi" in the Psalter you would simply cite it.

The same formula, "Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Our God, King of the Universe" is used in rabbinic benedictions and it post-dates both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

"There are three types of formulas for benedictions ... The mention of God as "King of the Universe" (known as Malkhut) occurs only in the first two forms, and not in the third. It is totally absent from the Amidah, and probably did not become customary before the second century C.E. (Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 40a). (Encyclopedia Judaica, "Benedictions")

Enough empty claims. There is no reference to God as "God/King of the Universe" in the Psalms or anywhere in the Bible or in the traditional Litury. It's found in rabbinic Judaism and in the Novus Ordo. Why this concept of God as "Malkhuth" or "King of the Universe" exists in rabbinic Judaism and not in the Bible is a topic worthy of discussion.

HallnOates said...

Dear anonymous, if there was even one instance of the benediction formula used in the Novus Ordo, "Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi" in the Psalter you would simply cite it.

The same formula, "Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Our God, King of the Universe" is used in rabbinic benedictions and it post-dates both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.


In the Second Book of Maccabees 7:9 is the verse:

And when he was at the last gasp, he said thus: Thou indeed, O most wicked man, destroyest us out of this present life: but the King of the world will raise us up, who die for his laws, in the resurrection of eternal life.

http://drbo.org/chapter/46007.htm

This in the latin vulgate is translated as:

rex mundi

http://drbo.org/lvb/chapter/46007.htm

I read the Second Book of Maccabees as found in the essentially Protestant-Talmudized Anchor Bible Series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Bible_Series) and authored by the Talmudist Jonathan Goldstein. I read it more as to see what historical facts could be taken out of it - really more of a data mining exercise regarding the Maccabees.

The Talmudist gloss on the Maccabees was quite bad and filled with mistranslations and downright falsifications of interpretation of the text totally at odds with proper Catholic interpretive authority.

In the Talmudist mistranslation and notes of II Maccabees 7:9 was the translation:

King of the Universe

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, anonymous poster having a stroke.

Anonymous said...

Maurice and HallnOates,

The words "trinity" and "bible" aren't even in the Bible. Am I to assume, as the Seventh Day Adventists do, that they are alien concepts with no truth to them -- corruptions unknown to Christ's Church designed to fool, or hodwink, the faithful?

God is not "Deus Universi"? Really? Even Bishop Tissier de Mallerais might find it hard to believe that God is not "Deus Universi".

Ah, but you have a problem with this "concept," heretofore, you say, unknown to the Church (the way the Adventists believe the "trinity" is an alien concept to the Church introduced by malicious agents centuries ago along with making the sign of the cross and venerating statues).

However, 2+2=4 is, indeed, the same concept as 4-2=2.

Traditionalists incessantly claim how the Reign of Christ the King has been denied by what they label as the "post-conciliar" or "new" Church, and now, ironically, from those very same traditionalists is a refutation of the 'concept' of God as "King of the Universe" -- an implicit denial of the Father's Kingship of the universe (or 'everything,' if you prefer), and, therefore a denial of Christ's Universal Kingship.

Maurice Pinay said...

Dear anonymous. You're clearly here only to discredit people by summoning many straw men and red herrings.

The point, which you seem unable to confront, is that post-Christ rabbinic benedictions have no place in the Catholic liturgy.

The Pope's liturgical specialist identifies these non-biblical, rabbinic benedictions as "Jewish table blessings." Authoritative Judaic sources date them after Christ. There's nothing else to discuss here unless you come back with some weighty source which demonstrates that the Novus Ordo's "Jewish table blessings" are of Israelite, and not post-Temple rabbinic origin. Since the Pope's man can't do it with the limitless resources available to him, it's doubtful that you can. If you find the proof, please let us know.

"King of the Universe" has a meaning to the rabbis who concocted it which is not intuitive and which is quite incompatible with Catholicism, and for this reason it's doubly offensive that rabbinic benedictions containing it have been tacked to the Catholic Mass. Unless you understand the rabbinic concept of Malkuth, you have no business arguing about it.