Some irony for the defenders of the lawless, heartless St. Peter’s Mass Suppression Stunt

And yet another point about the cruel, cold edict from High Atop The Thing against priests who want to offer Holy Mass at side altars of San Pietro… as they have been able to do for decades.

Those applauding this act of oppression, on the basis of their personal dislike for the mere idea of a priest’s freedom, and liturgical diversity, fueled by a kind of mania for uniformity, will resort to saying things like:

“The Eucharist is a communal celebration…. To have a private Mass is a sort of an oxymoron.”

That’s, of course, correct.  Because at every Mass is the heavenly host present.  To every Mass the poor souls turn their longing eyes.  The saints in heaven rejoice.  But the defensive phrase is meant only for earthly, terrestrially living people.  This defense is a symptom of a modernist view: the reduction of the supernatural to the natural.

Another argument is, in a nutshell: “Vatican II. So, shut up and conform! Because? Because, VATICAN II!”

However, as a priest friend wrote to me today:

In the current imbergoglio about Mass and St Peter’s, I am surprised that no one seems to have pointed out the irony…

… that the Missal of Paul VI exalted the private Mass beyond any previous eminence.

The 1970 Missal was the first to have a separate distinct rite for “private Masses.”

So… VATICAN II!  Right?

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, The Drill and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Kathleen10 says:

    The irony and hypocrite identification gene is absent in liberals.

  2. JonPatrick says:

    Sounds like some people need remedial Theology training. I suggest the chapter on the Eucharist from Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Catechism.

  3. 7frati says:

    Fr, I would love to read your take on this:

    I got about halfway thru before having to turn it off. I don’t understand why this man is continued to be considered an expert on the church and theological matters. He clearly has only a superficial understanding of theology and even so dares as to relegate Benedict to a product of his own personal appetites with respect to Summorum Pontificum, failing to recognize Benedict’s obvious theological “superiority”…. if you can use that word in this context. Benedict is a scholar and incredible theologian, and most importantly a man of true faith (something that evidently Beans is lacking). How he could go so far as to make some of the assessments or accusations that he does is beyond my comprehension.

    [I’d rather dig my eyes out with a broken stick. I suspect that nearly everything he says is wrong. But that’s how they roll. Keep telling lies until they replace the truth.]

  4. Pingback: The lawless, heartless St. Peter’s Mass Suppression Stunt – more | Fr. Z's Blog

Comments are closed.