jump to navigation

Fr. Carota: priests who embrace the TLM and traditional Faith will inevitably come to find grave deficiencies in the post-conciliar practices May 12, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, manhood, martyrdom, persecution, sanctity, scandals, Society, SSPX, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
trackback

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 an unanticipated side effect of Summorum Pontificum that priests who come to offer the TLM and the whole traditional practice of the Faith will find the post-conciliar changes deficient.

Excerpts begin below. I add emphasis and comments:

This blog is for all you traditional Catholic priests, or those of you who are just beginning to discover the great treasure of Traditional Catholicism.  All over the world, the Holy Spirit is opening priests’ hearts and minds to embrace the great ancient treasures of our Catholic faith that have been buried and discarded for the last 50 or 60 years…….

…..Then we discover the HUGE difference between all that we know; The New Mass, New Sacraments and New Prayers, with these ancient Latin Rites we begin to study and practice.  This can bring on a terrible crisis in our priesthood.  WE CANNOT DENY WHAT WE ARE DOING EVERYDAY AS NOVUS ORDO PRIESTS, AND THE HUGE DIFFERENCE WE EXPERIENCE DOING THE ANCIENT RITES AS TRADITIONAL PRIESTS[It’s like it’s two different religions!]

Before, when all we offered and knew was the Novus Ordo New Mass, Sacraments and Prayers, we were satisfied doing our best to offer them according to the rules or rubrics in a sacred way.  But then, and especially after we start offering these Tridentine Rites, the difference in the rubrics and prayers, stare us straight in our faces.

Most of us are obliged to offer the Novus Ordo New Sacraments.  This is where the crisis begins to effect our conscience and our priesthood.  An example are the rubrics that dictate the way that the Host and Precious Blood is handled in the Latin Mass compared with the minimal rubrics contained in the New Mass for handling the Body and Blood of Jesus.  The same is to be said about the purification of the Sacred Vessels. [Just a query – is it not possible to use the TLM rubrics with regard to handling the sacred vessels?  I know the two Rites are not supposed to mix, that we are not to see hybrids of TLM and Novus Ordo, but is that a blanket prohibition?]

Then, when the rubrics of the Latin Mass explicitly demands that Jesus should only be given kneeling down and on the tongue, yet, in the New Mass, we are obliged to give Holy Communion in the hands and standing.   Bishops oblige priests to use Extra Ordinary Eucharistic Ministers to give out Holy Communion and to bless everyone who approaches in sin or who is not Catholic.  For us priests, trying to live in these two worlds, it can cause us to become schizophrenic.  [Are priests really so “obliged?”  I know one Novus Ordo priest who refuses to use EMHCs, for any Mass.  If a pastor determined not to use EMHCs, he would probably be disciplined, but since EMHCs are canonically supposed to be only an option for extraordinary situations, and not the everyday abuse we see, could a bishop do more than reassign to a less-then-desirable parish a priest who refused to use them?  Could such a priest not install altar rails and have that become the general mode of reception, kneeling and on the tongue?  I ask because there are some priests I know who have done all of the above, including one in this Diocese and the MFVA priests associated with EWTN (or, at least, they did as of 3  years ago). As for the schizophrenia, I completely understand.]

……….In the prayers of the New Mass, very rarely is the word ‘Sacrifice’ used.  In the Tridentine Mass, it is used very often and is the focus of the whole Mass.  It is called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  In the New Mass, it is called the celebrating of the Holy Eucharist.

I will write more on this gradual crisis, that any sincerely holy Catholic priests will go through, as they discover and offer the two rites, The New and the Old Roman Rites, together.  I also want to write more on the persecution we priests receive when we dare say the truth, ‘THAT THE LATIN MASS HAS MORE REVERENCE AND PROTECTION FOR GOD/JESUS IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST THAN THE NEW MASS’.  [And since that is demonstrably true, should bishops/pastors not permit priests to offer strictly the TLM if they feel so called, especially if there is a group of laity who desire to receive the Sacraments according to the pre-conciliar Rites?  Of course, most bishops today refuse to recognize that Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae even exist, so I don’t hold out excess hope for a sudden enlightenment]

What shall we do in this crisis of our Catholic Priesthood?  We pray, we keep on learning and we make decisions that take a lot of faith.  We must let our pastors and bishops know what our conscience is experiencing.  We may have to change parishes or dioceses where we will be able to offer the Latin Mass.  We may have to offer the New Rites with great pain, while we continue to offer the Ancient Rites. [This post is, in fact, a public letter with a quite specific target. Please, let’s not bring his name up]

We do not want to jump ship, even though this is very tempting to do.  We want to stay in canonically approved Church.  We need to have faith that God will take care of us, even if it means being terribly persecuted by our bishops, fellow priests and parishioners.

For all of you wonderful priests who are going through this crisis, God and Mary will sustain you.  Let us pray for each other and go steady on.  The Catholic truth that we have discovered is TRUE.  There is no turning back.  God needs us right now in His Church to help reform, renew and remind people of their Catholic Treasures that were almost destroyed, but are now being brought back to life at the great price of great persecution and ostracization.

Now that’s a meaningful post.  As I said, individual readers may not agree with Father Carota’s recommendation, but I thank God he has broached the subject, because I think it is one that will become more significant as time goes on.

I guess this post also answers a question I’ve had in my mind for a while, whether Fr. Carota was “required” to offer the Sacraments according to the post-conciliar changes.  It seems the answer is yes, but it also seems Fr. Carota has great difficulty doing so.  Does anyone know for certain?

I do think a clarification or “improvement” to Summorum Pontificum/Universae Ecclesiae is necessary, that being, do priests who find they obtain such greater edification and fruit from the pre-conciliar Rites, and who have a decent group of laity who desire them, not deserve the ability to offer those Rites as they feel called to do so, according to the “old” Rites and rubrics?  Not that I look for that to happen in this pontificate, but then again, our God is a God of surprises, so I may be shocked someday!  Heh.

What I’m asking is, if the TLM is to be liberated and treated as fully equal as they are described in Summorum Pontificum, as something never abrogated, how can a priest be denied the right to offer them when he will?  Certainly, there may be practical reasons, but what I’m referring to is what seems to be a blanket ban against going full-on TLM/traditional for any priests who are not in explicitly traditional “Ecclesia Dei” groups.  Does that not indicate that the TLM is still far from equivalent in the minds of bishops and pastors?   Even among those generous enough to allow a priest or two in their diocese to offer the TLM?  We are

I have a feeling this matter will be around for a while, and as I said, grow.  We are very much surrounded by the “throw the recusants a bone” mentality, instead of a spirit of generosity.  Go figure.  We had better be praying for our good, holy priests, they are in as desperate need of our prayers, as we are of their apostolates.

Comments

1. skeinster - May 12, 2015

Tantum,
I think you mean “conscience”, not “conscious”.

Tantumblogo - May 13, 2015

Thanks. I managed to get it right for most of the post!

2. Elizabeth - May 12, 2015

I read that post of Fr. Carota’s today ~ wonderful posting. A lot of what he said resonated with me as a lay person. Once I started attending the traditional Mass, learning it, and learning more deeply our Catholic faith, there was no going back. Not in a million years. Seems to me that I might have read or heard Fr. Michael Rodriguez giving a very similar testimony of what happened to him when he discovered true Catholic tradition and the true Catholic priesthood. No turning back and utterly life changing. By the way, has there been any word on Fr. Rodriguez?

Tantumblogo - May 13, 2015

Not as of yet. Please pray for him.

Elizabeth - May 13, 2015

I do and will continue. Thanks.

3. H-town - May 13, 2015

Has anyone had success in supporting a diocesan priest who is interested in learning the TLM? For instance, raising the money necessary for them to attend the TLM training seminars at the FSSP Seminary in Nebraska. If so, where they then able to begin offering a Latin Mass at their parish Church or elsewhere? Or were the obstacles too hard to overcome?

Cristero - May 15, 2015

Actually, H-Town, yes. Many people have experience at this. We only wish more did.

There are certain similarities in all cases, but it plays out in different ways.

I’m not aware of cases where there is not resistance. The obstacles have not been too hard to overcome, but because of the very phenomenon this post deals with, the matter typically goes beyond the liturgy and begins to affect doctrine.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

It is at that point when the real resistance and real obstacles begin to surface.

4. Frank - May 13, 2015

I too enjoyed this post and Fr. Carota’s. I don’t purport to have any knowledge of the Diocesan attitude toward the TLM. On our RCIA team at our parish in the Dallas area, I have two colleagues with entirely opposite perspectives. One shares my desire that the TLM would be made more widely available in our Diocese since it is quite a drive for us to get to the one TLM parish currently available. The other, who also happens to be our RCIA Director, has an entirely negative attitude toward the TLM. Whenever he talks about it, he disparages it in all the usual ways–the priest has his back to the people, no one can hear or understand him or the altar boys, having everything in Latin is too hard for people to handle, it takes too long, especially having Communion in the traditional manner, etc. He has no appreciation at all for the positive aspects. I have never heard him even encourage anyone to give it a try. I don’t know where he got this negative attitude, but I suspect it’s pretty widespread or we would see more parishes offering at least some opportunities for people to attend the TLM.

5. Peter - May 13, 2015

What would the characteristics be of a “less than desirable parish” ?

Tantumblogo - May 13, 2015

Usually one on the extreme periphery of a Diocese. Mind, I don’t necessarily see it that way, but that’s the way things work – most orthodox priests are assigned to the peripheries – as a preemptive response to our Holy Father’s emphasis, no doubt, as this has been going on for years!. I guess it is seen among priests/bishops as a punishment, or banishment. When Fr. Rodriguez got in trouble in El Paso, he was “banished” to Shafter, as far out to the periphery as you can get in these United States. And it’s happened locally, too. You can actually look on a map of this Diocese to see where the orthodox priests are.

It really speaks of a very worldly mentality. Parishes in the center of town are seen as the most desirable by clerics. I guess that’s because there is more for a single man to do, if you get my meaning? I don’t know. I can’t say I fully comprehend the reasoning, but it is a real phenomenon.

6. S. Armaticus - May 13, 2015

Reblogged this on The Deus Ex Machina Blog and commented:
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” 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. This 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.

Brian - May 13, 2015

Pope Benedict XVI’s first act after “resigning” his Papacy was to install a statue of St. Michael outside his abode. He knows the unseen forces are far more important to our struggle than the faces and personalities we see in this life. The battle is won and lost through prayer to God through the “invisible cloud of witnesses”.

Summorum Pontificum was given to us by God. Benedict is His faithful servant. We are on the winning side.

S. Armaticus - May 13, 2015

Dear Brian:

Thank you for your comment. I wholeheartedly agree. It is the Holy Spirit who is guiding the restoration of all things in Christ.

S.A.

skeinster - May 13, 2015

What a striking observation- thank you. The laity’s experience is different, of course, as our roles are. But the end result is the same- a gradual (or instantaneous) appreciation of the differences in the rites.

S. Armaticus - May 13, 2015

I was one of the fortunate to have been an alter boy during the Pauline reforms. I was always puzzled by why the mass changed. It was only years later, when I found the indult in the late 80’s that it began to dawn on me.

The Church hierarchy must start being honest with the Faithful, if they want any to remain faithful.

S.A.

7. c matt - May 13, 2015

There are a few parishes in H-town that offer the NO where the priest is Ad Orientum, and communion is offered on the knees and by the priest or deacon only. I can only assume, therefore, it is not prohibited to do so in the G-H archdiocese. I suppose it is also possible this is occurring w/o the powers-that-be’s knowledge. In which case, if they are reading this, I just made it all up.

8. Margaret Costello - May 13, 2015

Hmmm…and what if St. Athanasius went along with only “canonically” approved parishes? The ONLY reason there is a canonical issue with the SSPX is b/c Rome is modernist. It’s modernist Rome that is abusing it’s authority and persecuting true Catholics. And if it weren’t for those “irregular canonical priestly societies” we wouldn’t be having this discussion and still stuck in NO insanity. Love Fr. Carota…love him. But elevating “canonical” status to that of deification, especially when those in charge are manifest heretics and apostates defies and abuses reason. We follow the Deposit of Faith and Our Lord, not wayward Judases. God bless~

9. Cristero - May 15, 2015

Tantum…this is a top-notch topic. H-town’s question in posting #3 goes to a real important point. And it is really the point of your entire topic here.

Once again, what this topic does is to clearly illustrate the truth that we are dealing with two distinct religions here.

I have known some priests who were able to offer the authentic liturgy and seemingly remain unaffected in their doctrine as a result. In all cases these were priests who deliberately and willingly continued to offer the experimental liturgy as well. I am only guessing, but it seems that they have to consciously resist adopting the doctrine that accompanies the authentic Sacrifice of the Mass.

On the other hand, in the great majority of these cases, pretty quickly the priest who puts his heart and soul into the authentic liturgy and allows himself to be transported by it also has to adopt the authentic doctrine of the Church.

Cognitive dissonance is a real uncomfortable state-of-mind. People who do not have a lot of experience at kidding themselves really struggle with cognitive dissonance. It takes mental, emotional and spiritual energy to resist noting the obvious once a priest begins to conscientiously offer the Mass that every saint of the Roman Catholic Church offered and/or was sanctified through.

“Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi” is not just a pithy Latin statement to impress friends in a discussion. It is a powerful reality. We had darn sure better believe it, because all of the heresiarchs, past and present, darn sure believe it.

This is the great danger to the bishops of the world today. With all due respect to Pope Benedict XVI, these are not two forms of the same Rite and he knows it. This is precisely why your bishop, my bishop, and nearly every single bishop really needs to keep a stranglehold on this thing until it finally dies off. It threatens everything they have devoted their adult lives to.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: