Tags
Annibale Bugnini, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Catholic Church, Concilium, Francis church, heretical pope, hippies, Immemorial Mass of All Ages, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Liturgical Reforms, messeging, Modernists, Moto Proprio, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Novus Ordo, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pauline Reforms, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Secret Synod 2015, Sensus Fidelium, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, subversives, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, Tagged 1968, TLM, Tradition, Universal Church, Vatican, Vatican II
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.
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
The Deus Ex Machina Blog 
If you reads Actual Vatican two documents it states “In Writing” that there should be a Partial Translation of the mass into the Venacular (English, Chinese &Bantu etc.) Partial would mean that half of the masses( perhaps all of daytime masses) should have been left in Latin. Do NOT blame this on John 23rd. Weak no backbone Paul the 6th caused this(O Boyle AB suspensions of anti Humane Vitae dissents rescinded by Paul 6th in Dc) and letting Dutch bishops replace Balt. cathechism with famous F. Sheibleixx New mushy New C. and communion in hand etc. caused the problems to begin with. Benedict edict tried to undo the damage.
LikeLike
Dear Ed:
Yes, we can apportion much blame. What I find amazing is that a small cabal of revolutionaries were able to pull this off. Goes to show how dangerous blind obedience can be.
S.A.
LikeLike
Dear SA,
Sorry, but you may need to re-think this one.
While we wholeheartedly agree (as does Cardinal Burke) that the TLM is far superior to the N.O. in many ways, and have read a number of articles from dedicated now-traditional priests who are eager to share how greatly their priesthoods were enriched, even transformed by the experience of learning and presiding over the TLM;
it is simply FALSE to state your personal opinion, as FACT –i.e.– that the priest is “inessential” in the N.O form.
For the Eucharist to be confected during any Mass, a validly ordained bishop or priest with the right intention (to confect the Eucharist), with the right matter (wheaten bread and grape wine), are required.” This law of course applies equally to both the N.O. and TLM.
So while of course it is true as you go on to say, that something can’t be essential and inessential at the same time. It is your premise that the priest in inessential at the N.O. which unfortunately leads you to a simply false conclusion:
“It must follow then that by no logical formulation can it be claimed that the two are the same rite but in two different forms.”
==========
Cardinal Burke was asked this very question in an interview on Dec 11, 2014 and made a point of making the important distiction between the sensible differences and the facts: “Juridically, the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass are the same rite. Is this also your factual experience when you celebrate a Pontifical High Mass in the new or the old rite?
Cardinal Burke answered: “Yes, I understand that they are the same rite, and I believe that.
When the so-called New Rite or the Ordinary Form is celebrated with great care and with a strong sense that the Holy Liturgy is the action of God, one can see more clearly the unity of the two forms of the same rite. On the other hand, I do hope that – with time – some of the elements which unwisely were removed from the rite of the Mass, which has now become the Ordinary Form, could be restored, because the difference between the two forms is very stark.
Q. In what sense?
A. The rich articulation of the Extraordinary Form, all of which is always pointing to the theocentric nature of the liturgy, is practically diminished to the lowest
possible degree in the Ordinary Form.
===========
Inferior in overal quality, yes. But still the same rite, with the same Word of God proclaimed in each, and the same Lord, Truly Present in the Eucharist in each.
Communion services held in parishes where no priest is available, are not authorized to have someone “pretend” to confect the Eucharist. They are allowed to use prayers of the Faithful and Mass readings of the Day, but they are not priestless Masses.
LikeLike
Dear IF:
As always you are correct. Cardinal Burke is correct. However, I am also correct here likewise. Allow me to explain.
While you are correct that only an ordained priest can confect the Eucharist, and the Catholic Church still produces them, my point is a bit different.
What the liturgical reforms of Paul VI did was redefine the priesthood as it relates to offering the Mass. In the TLM, the priest is necessary since he acts in persona Christi and offers himself to the Father in an unbloody sacrifice. In the NO mass, the priest is just a presider with the “people of God”. In the Pauline reforms if you read them carefully, the requirement is no longer matter, form and intent as it was in the TLM, but rather “where two gather…” i.e. the requirement is now 2 “people of God”. What this does is that it makes the priest role immaterial for the Eucharistic Feast itself. In other words, the Eucharist can be confected outside of the Eucharistic Meal while the Eucharistic Meal can be “celebrated” without the confection. But regardless of whether there is transubstantiation or not, the NO can’t be celebrated without a minimum of 2 people of God. One of the major problems introduced by the Bugninites into the priesthood was the inability to celebrate private masses where only the priest was present.
As to my assertion that no confection is necessary for the N.O. Eucharistic celebration, proof is the self-service mass. Here is a post from Rorate Caeli about just this: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/04/box.html
So to tie this back to what Card. Burke said, the correct understanding is that at a NO order mass where we have transubstantiation, you have the same rite in two distinct forms. However you could have the NO without transubstantiation and then you get to the true goal of the Concilium, i.e. to make the Eucharistic meal indistinguishable with the protestant service.
This is why the tabernacles had to be hidden.
S.A.
LikeLike
Dear IF
I see where the confusion comes in. I edited the text to reflect this.
Thanks for the heads up.
S.A.
LikeLike
Dear SA,
Sorry but these things you’re stating as facts appear to us to be dead wrong. Don’t know what your sources for them are, but we’re reading directly from the GIRM,
which makes it very clear that
— the Priest is STILL fulfilling the same role as he did in the TLM, offering and also –AT THE SAME TIME–remaining aware of his role as presider “WITH” the Church–it’s NOT a substitution. He is doing BOTH, and in encouraged to say Mass daily WITH OR WITHOUT anyone else present:
Chapter II Paragraph 27
27. At Mass or the Lord’s Supper the People of God is called together, WITH THE PRIEST PRESIDING AND ACTING IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or Eucharistic Sacrifice
Chapter 1 Paragraph 19:
“Even though it is on occasion not possible to have the presence and active participation of the faithful, which manifest more clearly the ecclesial nature of the celebration,[29] the celebration of the Eucharist is always endowed with its own efficacy and dignity, since it is the act of Christ and of the Church, in which the Priest fulfills his own principal function and always acts for the sake of the people’s salvation. Hence the Priest is recommended to celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice, in so far as he can, even daily.[30]
======
REGARDING CONFECTING THE EUCHARIST AT EVERY MASS: paragraph 28 says:
“The Mass consists in some sense of two parts, namely the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, these being so closely interconnected that they form but one single act of worship.”
Paragraph 78. THE EUCHARIST:
NOW THE CENTER AND HIGH POINT OF THE ENTIRE CELEBRATION BEGINS, namely, the Eucharistic Prayer itself, that is, the prayer of thanksgiving and sanctification. The Priest calls upon the people to lift up their hearts towards the Lord in prayer and thanksgiving; he associates the people with himself in the Prayer that he addresses in the name of the entire community to God the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the meaning of this Prayer is that the whole congregation of the faithful joins with Christ in confessing the great deeds of God and in the offering of Sacrifice. The Eucharistic Prayer requires that everybody listens to it with reverence and in silence
========
KEY POINT OF COMPARISON: IN THE CANON OF THE TLM THE PRIEST LIKEWISE Unites his prayer to that of the People saying:
“Therefore oh most merciful Father we humbly pray and beseech Thee through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, that thou wouldst vouschafe to receive and bless these gifts, these presents, these holy and unspotted sacrifices, which in the first place WE offer Thee for Thy Holy Catholic Church……
=========
It is the same–intention and import. Just carrying on the Tradition..
LikeLike
Dear IF:
My source is Fr. Anthony Cekada who performed the critical examination of the 1969 general instructions to the Pauline reformed Novus Ordo Missae:
Now I will granted you that after the Ottaviani interventions, the 1970 instruction was “modified”, however the modification was along the lines that Card. Kasper explained when he said that … two completely opposite definitions were placed in the same sentence to make the entire Conciliar reform (actually Vatican II) palatable to both sides. However, the intent was the way I explained above.
As to the present situation, here is the way one seminarian depicted his experience wtih the definition of the priesthood at his former seminary:
http://www.stjohn17v20-21.com/priest01.htm
“Simply a ‘presider’
The “correct” version may involve a de-emphasis on the word “priest” because it is cultic and exclusive to some. It is more rightly referred to only as “ordained ministry,” with an emphasis placed on the fact that some ministries are for regulating power. An “ordained minister” is commissioned in the name of the community to lead that community in worship. The “modernization” of the priest’s role means that he is a social worker with religious politics, or a “community animator” with a dynamic personality and flair for drama and entertainment. He may also be simply “a leader of the community, ” a “presider” who arranges worship and leads others as a conductor for an orchestra, and also runs the parish as another kind of business. He may also be the “counselor on call” who helps people feel better about themselves. In a time when pride causes us to so easily confuse personal ambition with vocation, it is becoming more and more common to find notions of priesthood that increasingly exclude rich sacramental definitions. Because of the inevitable and increasing envy and jealousy over the priest’s unique ontological status and sacramental ministry, there is a mounting movement to demythologize the priesthood and remove its sacred and unique character, and have the priest be essentially no different than anyone else. If others cannot have what he has, then what he has must be removed. If it cannot be removed, it should be watered down.”
At this point, I will again confirm that you are correct, i.e. that there is still a requirement for a priest to be present at a mass.
Furthermore, one can still get excommunicated for “publicizing” celebrating a mass without a priest. http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/head-we-are-church-excommunicated-celebrating-mass-without-priest. But it is also fair to say that Catholics are getting conditioned for this “eventuality”. Here is one such piece of evidence from Fr. Z. http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/05/ask-father-sister-started-mass-without-the-priest/. What the logical end of this “process” leads to is “The Box”. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/04/box.html.
I also have seen a mass in Italy which was self-service with a priest w/o vestments (maybe even a bishop) standing off to the side as the congregation was engaging in the “Eucharistic Meal”. Once I locate this image, I will put it up with the text.
But I hope the above is adequate support for the point that I was making.
One further observation. We are definately dealing here with liturgical abuse. This situation is analogous to the situtation of one archbishop of Buenos Aires w/r/t diveroced/remarried receiving communion. Here is how Sandro Magister described it:
” On communion for the divorced and remarried, it is already known how the pope thinks. As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the “curas villeros,” the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away, even without those “penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop” projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out.”
Furthermore, I will allow Sandro Magister to explain what his happening here:
“Because this is how Bergoglio’s revolution proceeds, “long-term, without obsession over immediate results.” Because “the important thing is to initiate processes rather than possess spaces.” Words from “Evangelii Gaudium,” the program of his pontificate.”
And where does Francis want this “process” to lead to? As far as the liturgical reforms are concerned, we wants them to tie back into the 1969 general instructions to the Novus Ordo Missae.
Actually, the progressive seminaries seem to already be there and will be waiting for him. That is, if any of them are still around at that time.
LikeLike
Dear SA,
Okay, if we understand all of this correctly, we see where the problem really lies, now.
You’re apparently depicting the situation many priests have described experiencing when transitioning from strictly Novus Ordo to saying the TLM regularly; and speaking more about the feelings and impressions they’ve realized they used to have
–such as that the priest was ONLY a presider at a meal, for example (as we often hear) and that they were not fully understanding the impact of their roles and importance as “another Christ” in the Holy Sacrifice, until earning and saying the TLM brought that home to them with a much greater impact.
–This speaks to the important distinctions Cardinal Burke also made between the two rites, and how much more the TLM brings out that aspect, because some N.O. priests get what their full role is, while others don’t.
As long as you’re only talking about false impressions and abuses, we have no problem with that. It’s when people actually deny that the N.O. is the same rite, that we object, because from what we’ve seen looking into all the lists of objections, they end up pretty much baseless, except as we said before, where the depth and richness of the prayers can use vast improvement/restoration. . Even the O-Intervention, really comes up short when we analyze it. So do the Sede lists (Fr. Cekeda’s etc)
Which is probably why the Pope ignored them and went ahead with promulgation.
Cardinal Burke noted the important things. It could have been done without the hatchet they took to it, and needs a lot of work. But it’s not evil or something that will harm people who attend it. We’re living proof that on the contrary, people can grow in the Faith and have their lives greatly enriched by participating in it fully.
This is important to us, as traditional Catholics, that our fellow Catholics don’t buy into the idea that the N.O. has to be trashed in order to elevate the appreciation for the TLM. They can each bring people closer to God. If the N.O. were improved as Cardinal Burke would like to see done, it would, like the TLM be a better teaching Mass, as well as worship.
One thing all this has pointed out to us, that is rather surprising. The seminary training must be SO deficient, that WE, as lay people, had and still have a much better grasp of what the Mass is supposed to be, including the importance of the priest AS another Christ, than the priests themselves often do. THAT’s pathetic and very troubling.
But it proves once again that It’s NOT the N.O. itself that is the problem, as much as the teaching of what it’s supposed to be, that is lacking. The the preparation of the Faithful in understanding the Liturgy is necessary for BOTH the TLM and the N.O.
.
LikeLike
Dear IF:
The NO is not evil, until a Church council deems it as such. In this respect, it is like anything else in the Church.
I really like Mundabor’s explanation. He rightly observes that God would not be so cruel to His creation, as to deprive it of the means to obtain grace.
As far as the N.O., the problem with it is that it lacks a coherent philosophical base. Actually, the theology behind it is self-contradictory. The John Lamont essay that I continuously link to makes this very apparent. The confirmation that Lamont is correct is contained in the Cekada videos, where he speaks about how the innovators had to “modify” the rite in the 1970 general instructions.
What they had in fact done, and purposefully, is reduce the NO theology to one solely based on faith received from the written Word. This explains the protestant advisers. And this is the GREAT service that Card. Ottaviani performed for the Church. Can you just imagine that if it was not for card. Ottaviani, we probably would not have a mass as Holy Sacrifice, which would mean that we would not have had a valid mass at all.
I think future generations will be very kind to both card. Ottaviani and Bocce. Akin to St. Athenasius.
Just some closing thoughts…
S.A.
LikeLike