A
Ad_Deum
Guest
I absolutely agree and hopeful.
Pax
Laudater Jesus Christo
Instaurare omnia in Christo
- Status
Pax
Laudater Jesus Christo
Instaurare omnia in Christo
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
For what it’s worth, I think it is ill done of the Cardinal to “bemoan” the MP, as it were, but then no more so than “traditionalist” priests who will not or say they will not celebrate the NO.
We all need to get over ourselves and we need to stop harping at our Mother, the Church.
We all need to get over ourselves and we need to stop harping at our Mother, the Church.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
I don’t want to bring up the SSPX, but isn’t it just them who refuse to say the NO?
C
chicago
Guest
Was I supposed to make the sign of the cross at the asterisks or something when reading that article?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I’ve heard that other traditionalist orders or societies in good odor with the Church also refuse, but that’s only what I’ve heard and I’d be glad to be wrong about it.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
I’ve heard the FSSP doesn’t have to, (by permission) but Resurrexit or CatholicNick would be the ones who would know for sure.
C
ComradeAndrei
Guest
Some do not say the NO, not on account of any perceived invalidity but because of their charism for the TLM. I don’t see what the big deal is, we don’t expect every NO priest to say the TLM, do we?
Likewise, some do not concelebrate at the Chrism Mass and I agree with their position-concelebration is not the sign of unity with the bishop.
Likewise, some do not concelebrate at the Chrism Mass and I agree with their position-concelebration is not the sign of unity with the bishop.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
As long as they state, anywhere, that they “don’t have to,” then it’s hardly to be wondered at that there will be those who will state that they “don’t have to” and “won’t” regarding the TLM. I think both positions are, at best, regretable.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Has the Church ruled that there is a “chrism” for the TLM? I don’t believe that there is. I believe that there is a chrism for the priesthood, to help shepherd the faithful, etc., but I don’t believe at all that there is a “chrism” for the Old Mass or for the New One, for that matter. Christ calls to the priesthood, not to a style or a liturgy. It’s all the Mass.
C
ComradeAndrei
Guest
No, but if they are dedicated to offering the traditional Mass then I see no point in offering the NO. Why would an FSSP priest need to say the NO-is an “indult” parish going to request the NO?
It is not simply “all the Mass”. While both are legit, if they were simply equal with absolutely no difference then there would be no need for indults and motu proprios and such, would there?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Further, Pope Benedict said this in the cover letter to the bishops on the MP:
“Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”
“Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Yes, there would, or there wouldn’t be one. See my last post and then read the whole of the Pope’s cover letter again.
And ask the Holy Father why an FSSP might need to say the NO. He’s the one who brought it up, not me.
I’m off to bed, won’t be able to respond until tomorrow.
P
Petergee
Guest
Well said.1. He is not obliged by any law to offer it
- He is committing no sin in expressing this unwillingness
- He has not said that he will under no circumstances offer it
- It is in any case not the form of the Roman Rite prevalent & customary in the Roman Rite
- It was revised in 1969, by the authority of the Church, so he can hardly be criticised for obeying the manifest will of the Church by offering the Liturgy which it has, in cosequence of an Ecumenical Council, approved.
- It is unfortunately a fact that the unrevised Missal has been used as a totem by schismatic groups - why should he yield to them or to those who think of of the revised Missal as they do ? Catholics keep pleading for bishops to be strong against error - and he is being strong against error. Error is error, even if it takes the external form of love of the unrevised Missal - the problem is to tell Catholics from malcontents - or from schismatics such as the SSPX or the CMRI. The SSPX and similar indescribable monsters won’t be satisfied until the Church has become a gigantic Lefebvrist sect - they are not Catholics, but megalomaniacs. Cardinal Martini is helping to protect the Church against the poison of these monsters.
- A problem with Traditionalism is, that it influences people to be so keen on getting what they want (as though they were the whole Church, rather than a minority in it) that they confuse freedom to have their lawful desires fulfilled (which are fine) with taking away the equally legitimate freedom of other Catholics (of most Catholics, that is) to worship as the Church allows, & encourages & wishes them to worship (& that, is not good at all).
- Cardinal Martini is unlikely to be ignorant of schismatic groups in Italy, or of those who confuse a fossilised notion of tradition with fidelity to it. He does not have the freedom from responsibility for his acts that we do - our criticisms of bishops go nowhere, because we are nobodies in the Church, so what we say is irrelevant in practice. Because of his position, he is much less free in this respect. He has to think of more than one small group in the Church - he has to consider the good of all.
I would add that Cd Martini started out by saying he admires B16 for issuing the MP, so the assertion by some here that he stated he “opposes” the MP are ridiculous.
It seems some here would only be happy if he said “Nothing good came out of V2 and the subsequent reforms of the liturgy.”
And it’s silly to demand he say nothing. He writes a regular newspaper column commenting about issues relating to the Church. If he said nothing about the issue of the MP, no doubt some would interpret his very silence as meaning that he opposes it.
C
ComradeAndrei
Guest
They recognize the value and holiness of the NO but why celebrate the NO simply to “prove” something? They serve parishes that want the TLM-when are they in need of celebrating the NO?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
As I said, the Pope made mention of it, not me. I happen to think it’s along the same lines as the Cardinal refusing, absolutely, to celebrate the TLM.
And we don’t need priests who will only celebrate the TLM. The demand for it is small, compared to the total needs of the Church. We need priests who will be able to celebrate BOTH, because there’s always going to be people who want both. I do not for a minute believe in a “charism” for the TLM or for the NO, for that matter. I believe in a priestly charism for the whole service of the Church.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
First off, I’d like to weigh in on His Eminence by saying I think it was in pour taste to air his sour grapes but hardly worth a whole thread to complain about it. There have been far more vicious things written by bishops trying to constrain and intimidate their priests in order to thwart the MP.
That said, I think the discussion about charisms and the desire not to say the NO can be seen in a more balanced contest if we get away from the TLM/NO dichotomy and look at it in the larger context of all Latin liturgies before so many orders forsook their venerable distinctive uses. A Dominican priest didn’t get ordained only to celebrate the Dominican rite, but no one ever looked askance at him for wanting to celebrate solely his own rite which, being an integral part of the spirituality of his order, was bound up with the life he chose in entering a particular community. In fact, he often needed special permission to celebrate the Roman rite, even when saying Mass in a parish (it was not until the 1940s that parishes administered by the Dominicans received permission to use the Roman rite). The same for a Norbertine, a Carmelite, a Carthusian. There need not be some sort of rejection of the Roman rite in these cases, simply a devotion to the particular spirituality embraced by one’s order. Priests belonging to todays “traditional orders” similarly have a spirituality and liturgical use proper to their order, it just so happens that the liturgical use is one of two forms of the Roman rite. Devotion to the liturgical uses of one’s order need not entail an active rejection of other uses. If a priest really did on principle refuse to celebrate a vald right under licit conditions, we would have reason to worry. But if he simply asks permission to exclusively use his community’s particular rite, I’ve got no problem.
A
AlexV
Guest
A friend of mine is in the FSSP.
He is very busy on Sundays. In fact, he sometimes trinates, with permission from his superiors.
Those three Masses, and sometimes 2 daily Masses, are all 1962.
He’s in France, by the way.
Now, is he also supposed to make room for an ordinary Mass to “prove” to some people’s satisfaction that he accepts it?
So indeed, there are priests who are NEEDED for only extraordinary Masses (and vice versa). Let’s avoid the truly tired “the demand is so low” nonsense. As noted before on these fora, banning something for decades and then claiming nobody really wants it anyway is a bit disingenuous.
He is very busy on Sundays. In fact, he sometimes trinates, with permission from his superiors.
Those three Masses, and sometimes 2 daily Masses, are all 1962.
He’s in France, by the way.
Now, is he also supposed to make room for an ordinary Mass to “prove” to some people’s satisfaction that he accepts it?
So indeed, there are priests who are NEEDED for only extraordinary Masses (and vice versa). Let’s avoid the truly tired “the demand is so low” nonsense. As noted before on these fora, banning something for decades and then claiming nobody really wants it anyway is a bit disingenuous.
C
Conciliar
Guest
Gee Peter,
That’s a pretty naive position to take.
Since the Cardinal praised the Holy Father for issuing the MP before he went on to explain his opposition to the content of it, he doesn’t really oppose it? C’mon. This is like saying to your wife, “No insult sweetie, but you look fat in that dress,” and then telling her she’s acting ridiculous for being insulted. *
*
P
Petergee
Guest
Gee Peter,
That’s a pretty naive position to take.
Since the Cardinal praised the Holy Father for issuing the MP before he went on to explain his opposition to the content of it, he doesn’t really oppose it? C’mon. This is like saying to your wife, “No insult sweetie, but you look fat in that dress,” and then telling her she’s acting ridiculous for being insulted. *
C
catechumen08
Guest
Exactly! As far as I know, it’s voluntary, and up to each archdiocese. I mean, it’s not like the Pope outlawed NO Masses; he simply added another option.
For the lack of a better expression, Pope Benedict rules!
- Status