The post begins by referring to three diocesan priests in Italy to began, in the wake of the motu proprio in 2007, to begin to celebrate exclusively the Extraordinary Form. The Mass that our Holy Father reaffirmed "was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted."
And yet to dare to celebrate this Mass of great antiquity--to follow the explicit legislation of the Vicar of Christ-- is for a priest to invite persecution. And to celebrate it, and it alone, well, that takes courage.
There are many approaches to encouraging liturgical restoration, and with it, the restoration of the Catholic faith within the Church. Some belong to religious communities that are dedicated to the traditional form, some try to incorporate the Extraordinary Form into the life of the parish alongside the Ordinary Form. I do not criticize the good faith effort of any such priest, bishop or faithful. What I do sincerely believe is that over time, one Form will achieve the principal place and the other will greatly recede. I won't spoil the ending for readers by telling you which one I think will win out. Time will tell, of course, but without the traditional Mass of the Church gaining strength there is not much chance that the Church (and I speak here of the temporal side only) will regain the vitality of faith so desperately needed as we (in the words of a holy priest) "descend into a new age of persecution."
The post and the links therein are worth reading. Take some time to do so. As
Q. Why have you refused the so called “biritualism” in contrast to other priests who have welcomed Summorum Pontificum?
Posts
2 comments:
Timman. Hi.
Biritualism means that both liturgies are as equally good. Almost nobody thinks that. Some conservative Catholics in the highest places are trying to convince themselves that the choice between the two is like the differences between a Whopper and a Big Mac. I confess to liking both of those. I don't care which I eat when I want a fast food burger. But I despise the "Ordinary Form". Dog food might have a vitamin in it somewhere, but that doesn't mean I will voluntarily eat it.
Isn't it interesting that Michael Davies, an English speaking Welshman, is having an influence on Italian priests? Michael Davies is brilliant and balanced and he is faithful to Rome. I do not know that he was a saint, but God used him in our time, and his legacy is incomplete.
Davies' writings are devastating to the biritualistic balancing act that Pope Benedict is apparently going to promote through the end of his pontificate. I do not think the truth can be hidden forever. Davies shows clearly and without exaggeration how the Novus Ordo is a deliberately watered-down travesty. Whether it was self-consciously or not, the Novus Ordo authors fall into the same ditch as the arch-heretic Cranmer in England when he composed his ambiguous masterpiece. The parallels are so strikingly similar as to make one confident that if the Novus Ordo wasn't a self-conscious copy, they both were inspired from the same source.
Timman,
The problem with this post is that this goes against what the Holy Father is trying to do with SumPon. The Extraordinary Form is meant to remind priests, who primarily say the Ordinary Form, of where the latter form comes from. To help them see the long standing liturgical tradition that is thankfully kept alive in the EF. It is almost like a child who has forgotten his faith, and in reconversion remembers the faith of his parents and uses it as the model to start reliving his faith. I don't think it is wise to pass this off so quickly. Are all of the things Fr. Secci described in his interview (ad orientem, communion on the tongue, the Roman Canon, Gregorian Chant, etc.) incompatible with the OF? Moreover, his comments about the SSPX as preserving the "Mass of all ages" and soon the "everyone will see what he was doing" seems a little arrogant.
Andrew K
Post a Comment