The FSSP scrubbed the public version of the press release following their audience with the pope to omit his requirement for participation in the Chrism Mass. See here the version withheld from the public:
It is not a surprise, we must confess, that the FSSP is not left entirely untouched by the strictures imposed by Trad. Cust. The one area where they have been left intact following the abrogation of Sum. Pont. is the fact that they run parish churches. We have heard ad nauseam that TC is intended to completely eliminate the traditional Mass from all parish churches.
The Vatican position seems to have softened here a bit to allow “participation” other than concelebration. And, to be fair, it has become a new “tradition”, if you will, for priests to celebrate the Chrism Mass and/or Holy Thursday with their bishop. A not entirely unreasonable request.
“The Council eventually decided to extend the faculty of concelebration but limited it to Holy Thursday and the Chrism Mass, Masses celebrated in Councils, episcopal assemblies, and synods, and at the Mass of an abbot’s blessing.” (https://www.ncregister.com/news/french-canonist-questions-the-legality-of-mandating-priests-to-concelebrate-the-mass)
Concelebration was rather restricted prior to Vatican II, occurring only at priest ordinations and consecration of bishops. This favored the offering of more Masses, of course, with the multiplication of graces therefore. (Ibid).
Now we have swung too far in the opposite direction, with the harmful and unCatholic forbidding of individual private Masses even at Saint Peter’s in Rome.
The agenda behind the brutal enforcing of concelebration is quite transparently the effort to impose the new liturgy upon the whole Church. A rather plain confession that this complete innovation has never been accepted by everyone in the Church from the moment if its imposition by Bugnini and comrades.
But the priest can always pray with his bishop while offering a private Mass on the same day. Attending Mass “in choro” is one way of doing this. This in light of the fact that we are not aware of any current ordinaries who celebrate the traditional liturgy on Holy Thursday or for the occasion of the Chrism Mass. (A generous sign devoutly to be wished for which would make of the search for unity truly a two-way street.)
In the case of the FSSP we have the idea of preserving communion with Peter at his see in Rome in the wake of, and in reaction to, the irregular status of the SSPX. The eponymous name of the priestly fraternity is evidence of this emphasis. Communion with one’s ordinary is a non-negotiable building block of communion with the pope.
Back to the repeated admonition for concelebration of the Christ Mass, which is usually scheduled at a time and on a day in Holy Week which will not conflict with the individual priest’s liturgical Holy Week duties in the parish, typically including that of Holy Thursday.
“And what’s the big deal with one novus ordo per year?” you might ask. If the novus ordo has the capacity to replace the TLM on any occasion then it can replace the TLM not only on any occasion, but on every occasion. That is, exclusively. And thus is eliminated the engine for the restoration of full traditional Catholic life. Such a dilemma can be resolved by the priest offering his daily TLM in addition to attending the Chrism Mass and doing so “in choro”, as is always his right.
I have observed a trend on the part of some priests already for some years to attend, for example, ordination Masses for the permanent diaconate vested in surplice and seated near the concelebrating clergy to signify the sufficiency of the daily Mass they have already offered at the parish church. That, too, is a theological principle worth preserving along with unity in prayer at the cathedral with the bishop liturgically.
How communion with the pope is defined and whether that definition excludes the SSPX is another debate for another occasion. Peter’s successor should always be seen to be most generous in granting the terms of communion, in keeping with Christian charity and the mission that “all be saved”. See Benedict and union with the Anglican use right community for a good example of this.
One sign that the pope already recognizes some element of ecclesial communion with the SSPX is the granting of “permission” for any Catholic to seek out their priests for the sacrament of confession and for weddings.
The novus ordo is the flagship of the modernist agenda and already has pride of place in most parishes. However, any priests or lay faithful who elude the reach of the new Mass might slip out of the grasp of control. Effectiveness for enforcing any elements incompatible with the Tradition, generated under the “spirit of Vatican II”, will suffer. As we see, the synodal Church in which we now find ourselves is occupied nearly exclusively with imposing innovations on parish life everywhere.
The lack of full transparency on the part of the FSSP here is very revealing. Not a good look. They lack the authentic freedom of the full Catholic tradition under the modernist agents holding power within the Vatican. They remain under the thumb of the modernist regime who created them and have got their teeth in and will not let go of this “bone”. Pretending otherwise by covering the truth is a cope which does not come any closer to making reality what one wishes, as we all know.
This episode reveals once again the underlying problem: the FSSP lacks the full freedom for a life in conformity with the integral Tradition, as is the reality with the SSPX whom they were hoping to replace.
The bottom line: the principle that the integral Catholic tradition provides all we need for fruitfulness in pursuing holiness of life for the sake of eternal salvation, now as always, is non-negotiable. Papering over this fact for the sake of preserving a public relations image is unworthy and avoids the real battle we face: demanding that our bishops provide for our rights as Catholics, as is their sacred duty.
2 comments:
It is not the Pope, but rather bishops who have, in many dioceses, made concelebration the litmus of whether they will allow the FSSP into their diocese. It would seem the Pope is telling the FSSP that his desire is the same, but that he will not force the issue either way.
I am grateful to be afforded the opportunity to attend an FSSP parish. I feel also immensely indebted and grateful to Marcel Lefebvre and all those who passed on the Tradition. I find articles such as these that take jabs at others tiresome and pointless. It adds nothing to the discussion other than "I told you so". There is obviously and understandably some deep wounds between the two. I wish both sides would just give it a rest. What is exactly do want, more communities devastated so your point can be made? Because I don't see any other solution in your article under the current setting.
Post a Comment