The dilemma:
On the one hand, the irenic wish to demonstrate docility towards the bishop, always a good default position.
On the other, the danger of sacrificing principle for the hope that one's mission can continue undisturbed.
Peter Kwasniewski examines the issue of the indult institutes and traditional clergy taking part in the Chrism Mass by means of actual concelebration; his arguments are worth reading and include many resources to back up his position.
It's helpful to survey the various liturgical and canonical experts he calls upon, because most Catholics consider this matter of concelebration trivial and accept it as a norm, without examination, when it is by no means supported from tradition. After all, the faith itself is based upon and upheld by tradition!
Somehow I sense that this statement will be met with interior resistance from many readers, but it is simply true. Yesterday's Feast of the Apostles Philip and James had, in the Office of Readings (Novus Ordo, so... ), a passage from the Book of Acts, which includes this verse:
Every family has to be traced back to its origins. That is why we can say that all these great churches constitute that one original Church of the apostles; for it is from them that they all come. They are all primitive, all apostolic, because they are all one. They bear witness to this unity by the peace in which they all live, the brotherhood which is their name, the fellowship to which they are pledged. The principle on which these associations are based is common tradition by which they share the same sacramental bond. (Acts 5) [My emphasis]
My observation of other institutes is that it doesn't end well to do things contrary to the consciences of its founders and members -- things that are not necessarily outright immoral, but that do, bit by bit, represent compromises on essential matters of liturgy, doctrine, and practice. There is more than one way to wear down one's apostolate and vocation.
Clergy could attend the Chrism Mass in choro, and there are other ways, as explained at length in the article, to demonstrate unity. "If what is desired of the traditional clergy is that they should freely and publicly express their communion with the local bishop and the presbyterate, it is manifest that concelebration is not the only way to express it."
Catholics who love tradition (again, all Catholics in theory) should be alert to slippery slopes, which have been our downfall on so many occasions. How many times will our good will be mangled? We should stand on rights against abusive authorities:
Chartier [the author Kwasniewski is responding to] calls into question the fittingness of applying Canon 902 to the Chrism Mass, yet any sidestepping of Canon 902 raises a deeper problem. The requirement of an annual concelebration can be seen as a way in which to insist that modern Church customs and pontifical preferences surpass and relativize tradition and canon law, which has been the pattern throughout Francis’s pontificate and indeed throughout all postconciliar pontificates, back to Paul VI’s surrender to northern European pressure regarding communion in the hand, or John Paul II’s surrender on the question of female altar servers. Being pressured into concelebrating, even for the “best” of reasons, is the first step on a slippery slope of giving up other rights and traditions.
And we need to resist legalistic rationalizations in matters of love and duty, in matters of faith. Our Savior spent His precious time on earth warning against it, yet nowadays it's almost our only mode -- something that should pierce us with remorse. Kwasniewski:
In short: however valid the new sacramental rites are, their legitimacy and licitness should not be assumed a priori. If there were even a slight doubt in the mind of a priest in this regard, he should not concelebrate the new Mass, for there would be a kind of dissimulation or dishonesty at work, and his conscience would rightly reproach him for it. [My emphasis]
Ultimately, the main purpose of any traditional entity, personal or institutional, would be diminished and even vitiated if important matters are yielded. And let's not forget the detrimental effect on the bishop, who will be a better apostle when challenged by those with purified intentions.
Bishops are surrounded by yes-men. They have come to imagine that their slightest whims must be obeyed, and yet I would say there are virtually none upon whom it dawns that they could rightly require obedience on matters of faith and morals -- subjects actually under their purview. They want total conformity to norms on using sanitizer but have no strong opinions on approaching Holy Communion having promoted abortion.
"Worthy of note is Fr. Murray’s reminder that even if a bishop had evidence and reason to correct a priest about his opinions, there would still be no basis for requiring concelebration at the Chrism Mass. It is not legally translatable into a requirement." You know what is legally translatable into a requirement? Public reparation for public sin. Not seeing too much of that these days, more's the pity.
It would do the bishops good to be stood up to for the sake of a right principle. What's the worst that can happen? Expulsion? It will happen anyway if such a matter, characterized by its proponents as not that important, represents the sort of pretext he would use. Better to be hung as a sheep than as a goat!
No comments:
Post a Comment