Archbishop Sample - All priest's should learn Traditional Latin Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter MagdalenaRita
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
It seems clear that for whatever reason, that’s not happening in many dioceses and other places (such as priests being ordained via some orders).

If this is a violation of canon, then the canon isn’t being enforced in many places.
Click to expand...
And there’s our answer.
Tis_Bearself said:
I thought they all were required to at least have a basic working knowledge of it.
Click to expand...
As do I - and according to what I posted in my posts upthread at #28 & #29 including links to a 2005 and 2016 Priestly Vocation documents - they are still.
 
Given that the document is 57 years old, one might consider doing some research as to why it is not particularly in force.
 
Because the bishops rebelled much like they did with the Winnipeg statement, but with less fanfare? Admittedly, supposition isn’t research, but what’s a lazy man to do?
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what those seminaries teach in terms of liturgy. However, some years back there was a bit of a dust-up within the FSSP, with the head of the FSSP saying that the priests could not say the OF.

Rome disagreed, pointedly. However, beyond that I have not heard.
 
However, to the best of my knowledge it is not required in law schools in the US.
 
I guess it depends if they want to do more than just use EP 2…likely before they rush to the next mass at some other parish. Honestly though, it’s not nearly as complex as the EF unless you’re thinking of all the options and how those affect other options. Or scripting what they’re going to say if they choose to insert their own words into the liturgy where they have the option to do that.
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
No, that would be up to the Bishop and Rector. But it seems to me it could be treated like any other class the seminarians take, they study the subject, attend lectures, and have tests, etc that judge their aptitude. Canon 248 has to do with theology, are there profienciy tests in theology to enforce that?
Click to expand...
I have had classes in Latin with Seminarians. Ecclesiastical Latin as opposed to Classical Latin. Everyone had to pass, including the Seminarians. Normal run of the mill Seminary, not your specialist Latin Mass teaching Seminary.
 
Last edited:
What I am refering to is: there are Priests who have no training in the OF. I have met one such Priest.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I would mandate each Priest to know both forms. They can be mutually enriching and Priests can find themselves in situation where they need to celebrate either of those forms. I’m not saying they have to celebrate it, be perfect at it or something, but they should at least know how to do so.
 
Priests should learn it so that if a parish wants a EF mass the priest will know how to say it.
 
Sean said:
Priests should learn it so that if a parish wants a EF mass the priest will know how to say it.
Click to expand...
I’d say they can learn it once there is a stable group of parishioners requesting it as Summorum Pontificum envisages.
 
What would be wrong with teaching both forms to all seminarians? What harm could there be to having an additional skill?
 
godisgood77 said:
I’d say they can learn it once there is a stable group of parishioners requesting it as Summorum Pontificum envisages.
Click to expand...
How long do you think it would take to learn the TLM from scratch? I think such a group of parishioners could be waiting a long time before they had their priest saying Latin Mass for them if he had to learn it from scratch after they made such a request, even if the priest was very willing.
 
Last edited:
godisgood77 said:
I disagree.

Per Summorum Pontificum, priests should offer the EF where there is a stable group of parishioners asking for it, not where there are activists priests promoting it.

The Church does not need more liturgy wars, nor do we need more time spent on the tinkering with liturgical practice.

Instead our priests should be focused on evangelization, the poor, delivering sacraments, service and personal holiness
Click to expand...
I hope you are not suggesting that it is out of place for clergy–never mind bishops!–to promote the TLM. If you are, please point out the section where Summorum Pontificum says that priests should refrain from “promoting” the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. No, this is what he wrote:

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.

Again: There is no reason that attention to the TLM needs to lead to anything like a “liturgy war.” This is quite the opposite of what Archbishop Sample is suggesting or what Pope Benedict XVI intended!

We really need to resist the current social and political climate and its tendency to make every question adversarial rather than seeing different ways of doing things as complementary and mutually-enhancing. I totally believe that the two forms of the Mass are mutually-enhancing. I think it is obvious that Archbishop Sample does, too. That is why he believes that all priests should learn the TLM: that is, that all priests should learn both!! If he thought making the TLM available is inherently a course that would lead to divisions, I cannot believe he’d be promoting it. That is not what he is about as an archbishop.

Does promoting lectio divina denigrate the Rosary, after all? Of course it doesn’t! One could even use lectio divina to reflect on each single Mystery of the Rosary individually, which would have a good effect on praying the whole Rosary thereafter. Likewise, the TLM does not conflict with the Ordinary Form. There are partisans of one way or the other who could push it that way, but that is on them. There is no inherent conflict, only invented ones.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top