Frown, You Must!
 |
| The fruit of the Modernist anti-liturgical heresy of archeologism: pretended reversion to concelebration as normative; altar replaced by a table-like junk... |
Preamble:
A few days ago I woke up to a rather interesting prologue attached to a list of carefully worded questions. Here we wish to attend to the first on the list:
Fr. Good morning. Please permit me to perturb your peace as I seek for your clarifications regarding some theological/liturgical questions besetting my mind.
1. Of the many ills numbered in the Novus Ordo is the issue of con celebration at which I have consistently frowned given its mockery of one priest(in persona christi) offering the sacrifice. However, my research on the matter made me stumble at the STh III. q. 82. A 2 which seems to give a supportive vigour to concelebration. Please, may I be better enlightened….
*******************************************
Dear -N-
A peculiar source of peace to a Catholic Priest is to see the faithful desirous to learn how to 'think with the Church', their Mother and Teacher. Be sure that my peace is in no way disturbed, but enobled, by your questions. My hope is that my responses may be instruments in the hands of Providence in confirming you in the truth, the saving Truth, thus setting your mind at peace in possession of it's very object.
On the question of con-celebration these points suggest themselves for consideration:
The very idea of concelebration.
The ecclesiastical law in force.
The Modernist reversion.
The very idea of Concelebration
Certainly you must add to your list of "things you discover" the fact that the very idea of concelebration is not repugnant in itself. From your research, you see that St. Thomas (STh III. q. 82.) defends it both from sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition. From this, it becomes obvious that frowning at the very idea of concelebration as such could only spring from not knowing better.
Yes, "many priests can consecrate and concelebrate simultaneously" a manual of Moral Theology affirms (Merkelbach III, 331).
 |
| The "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" Concelebrating with their Ordaining Bishop, May 11, 2022, in accordance with the provisions of the Roman Pontifical; at Saint Gethrude The Great Catholic Church, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. |
The Ecclesiastical Law In Force:
Commenting on Can. 803 of the 1917 code of canon Law, a renowned Canonist explains that concelebration was once common in both East and West, and is still in vogue in the Orient in cities where there is but one church.
It is also affirmed that under Innocent III (1198-1216) con-celebration was customary in higher feasts, but now it is forbidden in the Latin Church except on two occasions. The canon governing the practice of con-celebration reads thus:
"It is not licit that several priests concelebrate, beyond the Mass of ordination of priests and in the Mass of consecration of Bishops according to the Roman Pontifical" (Can. 803)
A reason to frown: Modernist reversion.
Given that you missed the chance to justify your frowning at the very idea of concelebration as practiced in the Modernist new order religion which they present to the public as Catholic, you certainly could not miss the chance to frown at their reversion to the practice despite the ecclesiastical law in force. Yes, frown you must, and for a good reason.
Now, from Pope St. Pius X, (Pascendi, 38) we know very well the reforming mania of Modernists. We know that "in all of Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten itself". Yes, in all Catholicism, nothing is spared from the odious slime of the Modernist reforming mania.
The reason to frown at the Modernist reversion to concelebration is that it is a fruit of what Don Gueranger calls the "anti-liturgical heresy". This, Fr. Cekada explains, is the hostility that all heresies show towards the traditional Catholic liturgy by trying to change it to achieve their own ends ( Work of Human Hands, 15). Amongst other things, the anti-liturgical heresy, as Dom Gueranger explains, promotes a hatred for tradition, contradictory principles, false appeals to antiquity, replacing altar with a table, use of vernacular etc.
The particular anti-liturgical heresy which birthed this reversion by the Modernists is "archeologism" definitively condemned by Pope Pius XII in his "Mediator Dei" (#61 & ff).
The Modernist liturgical wrecknovators, despising ecclesiastical authority, and dazed by their nostalgia to restore certain ancient rite and ceremony on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity, pretended to restore the custom of concelebration in the West, contrary to the prevailing liturgical law and practice. The reason for this is simple: this pretended restoration is favorable to their ecumenical agenda.
Concelebration is still in vogue in the Orient, even among the dissidents; for ecumenical reasons, Modernists, the most pernicious dissidents in the West, take the initiative to make the custom uniform, achieving a certain distinctive mark of unity in their anti-Apostolic Catholicity.
Summing Up
Yes, the practice of the Church shows that concelebration is not repugnant per se. However, the practice has gone out of use except for two cases: ordination of a priest and consecration of a Bishop.
The manuals available to me simply state the law as such without giving reasons. But, the authority of the Church in matters liturgical suffices for a Catholic true to so fair a title. The Modernists however, clinging only to the Catholic name while despising Catholic teaching authority, have worked hard to indulge their mania for reformation to its fullest.
If they were to have done this in their name as Modernists, it would have been none of our business. But, no, they have done it pretending to be Catholics and as promoting the Catholic cause.
As a Catholic, both at the Modernist anti-liturgical heresy of archeologism at the service of their ecumenical agenda, and the very ecumenical agenda itself, frown you must!
Comments
Post a Comment