Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


FOR THE RECORD

One theme that frequently arises not only on this blog but in many blogs that are not “against” the Immemorial Mass of All Ages (TLM) is the issue of the offering priests.

To be more specific, the issue is the effects that “returning” to offer the TLM has on the priest and the changes to his… let’s call it his psychological make-up, that this “return” entails. In fact, we are speaking about the priest’s sensus fidelium, or rather how he functions in the sensus fidelium of the Universal Church.

The cause of the issue that arises with respect to the sensus fidelium of the “returning” priests is caused by the complete dichotomy of the role of the priest in the two rites. On the one hand, he has to preside over protestantized gathering of the “people of God” where the priest in essence is superfluous. On an aside, it has even gotten to the point where “self service masses”, where the confection of the Eucharist takes place outside the N.O. Eucharistic meal, are beginning to appear. But I digress… On the other hand, in a proper Catholic mass, the priest acts “ in persona Christi” offering himself up to the Father in an un-bloody sacrifice. These two roles that the priest engages in are not only different by their very nature, but also break the logical law against self-contradiction.

Moreover, if the priest in the Novus Ordo rite is superfluous, and at the same time indispensible when offering the TLM, then what we have is a situation where the priest assumes two roles which are mutually exclusive.

In other words, something can’t be essential and inessential at the same time. It must follows then that by no logical formulation can it be claimed that the two are the same rite but in two different forms.

And this above, is the reason that Paul VI and the Concilium had to repress the offering of the TLM in the Universal Church after the Pauline reforms in 1968 and 1969. They knew, whether consciously or not, that the two rites could not co-exist, and could not co-exist for this very reason alone.

Therefore, the propagation of the Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum and granting the Faithful wide access to the TLM was nothing short of a time bomb that Benedict XVI released onto not only the Pauline liturgical reforms, but the entire Second Vatican Council infrastructure itself.

Closing, it must be seen as the greatest of ironies that Benedict XVI, in this case appears to be the ultimate subversive while the openly subversive Francis is faced with fighting a rear-guard reactionary action. No wonder they say that reality is stranger than fiction.

A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Below is excerpted a most important post from Fr. Peter Carota. It speaks to a matter of conscience afflicting more and more priests, that is, those priests outside explicitly traditional communities such as the ICRSS or FSSP, who take up offering the TLM and over time find the cognitive dissonance between the pre- and post-conciliar Rites and practice of the Faith almost insurmountable. Some of these generally diocesan priests have come to the conclusion that they cannot, in good conscience, continue to offer the post-conciliar Rites (Novus Ordo Mass and all the rest).  This is a problem that will likely only continue to grow if Summorum Pontificum continues to stand and more and more priests take up the traditional practice of the Faith.  May God bless all who do with abundantly, with the strength to always act in accord with His Will.

Fr. Carota addresses the matter head on.  It is…

View original post 1,369 more words

Advertisements