C
Catholic4Jesus
Guest
Would he be required to say the OF on occasions? Should he refrain from doing it to avoid ticking off his congregation if they aren’t all that into the EF? I just wanted to know. God bless.
Could A Diocesan Priest Celebrate the EF Mass And/Or Sacraments Exclusively?
- Status
T
TimothyH
Guest
A diocesan priest cannot refuse to do what is ordinary if told to do so. There is no requirement that the bishop command him to do so however.
Ordinary means normally done. He cannot refuse to do what is ordinarily done by the Church.
-Tim-
Ordinary means normally done. He cannot refuse to do what is ordinarily done by the Church.
-Tim-
C
commenter
Guest
A religious order might choose to specialize in a given apostolate. But diocesan priests have to respond to whatever the apostolic needs are in their diocese. In theory, if all the pastoral needs in parishes, and other places, are consistently being met, then yes, a priest might be allowed to concentrate exclusively on ministry with EF. But the reality in the US and many other countries is that there is a priest shortage.
Even if the priest found a congregation that wanted the EF exclusively, he (like all parish priests) still would get calls to offer Mass - preferably the OF - in schools, hospitals, convents, and for the K of C, or Holy Name, or Boy Scouts. If all those other assignments wanted the EF, fine, but he couldn’t keep turning down all outside assignments where the need is OF. That puts too much burden on the other priests. There’s an expectation that the diocesan priest, especially, has to respond to pastoral needs. Even if some of the people in his EF parish wanted the OF, I don’t think he could turn them down, unless there is a OF parish nearby they could go to.
P
phil19034
Guest
I would imagine that a diocesan priest would have to say the OF (as others have explained) unless his Bishop created a EF only Personal Parish which said priest was assigned to.
For example, the Diocese of Camden (New Jersey) is home to the first diocesan personal parish dedicated to the EF.
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia, on the other hand, has a priestly apostolate of diocesan priests who provide the EF in a quasi-personal parish. But they are also assigned to other parishes/duties.
For example, the Diocese of Camden (New Jersey) is home to the first diocesan personal parish dedicated to the EF.
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia, on the other hand, has a priestly apostolate of diocesan priests who provide the EF in a quasi-personal parish. But they are also assigned to other parishes/duties.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Why would it have to be a personal parish? Why not an EF-only territorial parish? If enough people in the area wanted it, what would prevent it?
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Yes, if he were assigned to do it and wanted to.
C
commenter
Guest
I suppose for the people who live nearby, the EF is de facto their “territorial” parish. Even if the neighborhood parish were to close, and the facility get assigned as a EF parish, then the boundaries in that neighborhood would now become part of the next closest OF parish.
In my American diocese the official territorial parishes are all in the OF, and in the vernacular - for us, English. The personal parishes offer Mass in Spanish, Vietnamese, Polish, Korean - and Latin. I realize it is not just a different language, but a different rite. I suppose if the number of TLM seekers grew so much they had 2 parishes focusing on the EF, then they might divide geographically between the 2.
But everyone always has the option of a territorial parish in the vernacular, in the Ordinary Form. They may or may not be in convenient distance to a personal parish also.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In theory, a diocesan priest can say the OF in any language he wants and the EF if he wants anytime.
But then it becomes a question of economics.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
And what of people in that territory who did not wish for the EF? Your proposal would exclude them from the form of worship the Church says they have a right to, forcing them to travel outside of their territorial parish for the sacraments and robbing them of a parish life in their community.
A
Ad_Orientem
Guest
I don’t think that definition of “ordinary” is quite right in this context. That aside, a priest must consider the pastoral implications of any decisions that affect public worship. Sudden, sweeping changes can be difficult for the faithful, as we saw in the 1970s.
T
TimothyH
Guest
There is no context. “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” are technical terms used by the Church with very specific meanings.
Ordinary = customary, usual, normal, standard
Extraordinary = the exception, unusual, non-standard
As another has stated, the faithful have a right to the sacraments in a form which the Church says is customary and normal. No diocesean priest may refuse to do what the Church says should be normally or usually done.
What happened in the 70’s and their implications are not relevant to the question asked by the OP and and has nothing to do with this conversation.
-Tim-
P
ProVobis
Guest
FWIW, the Polish “ordynarny,” also a cognate of the Latin, means “crude.” I just ran across it.
transparent.com/word-of-the-day/today/polish.html?date=11-27-2014
P
ProVobis
Guest
What about personal parishes where many people have to drive some distances to in order to attend a Mass in their preferred language and culture? In my hometown we have such a Polish parish, but people come from all over. There are also Spanish Masses which are in high demand but people have to drive quite a few miles because they don’t have enough Spanish priests.
T
TimothyH
Guest
That is not how the church uses those words.
What is now the extraordinary form of the Mass was once the ordinary form of the Mass. No one claims that the Tridentine Mass was crude before 1969 and not-crude after 1969.
-Tim-
T
TimothyH
Guest
That’s not a different form of the Mass. It is the same form in a different language.
The form is still ordinary. They cannot be denied that which is ordinary.
Their choice is language, not form.
-Tim-
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
There is no context? I’m not so sure. “Ordinary”, in law, does not always mean what you said it means. For example, a bishop has “ordinary” power. Context tells us that this does not mean he has “normal” or “standard” power, as opposed to “extraordinary” power (there is no such thing). Or that his power only addresses “ordinary” matters. Instead, “ordinary” here means that his power is attached to his office.
As for the terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary” form–as used by Benedict XVI–it’s difficult to find a comparable, legal usage of those words.
Dan
B
Brendan
Guest
Any language with a Vatican approved translation and that has been approved by the local Bishop’s conference that is.
A priest saying a Mass in Klingon or Elvish would fail on both counts,
B
Brendan
Guest
Ministers related to sacramental duties. Certain sacramental ministers exercise the role in an ordinary fashion, others in an extraordinary fashion. Baptism would be a prime example. A priest or deacon is the ordinary minister of the Sacrament, and the laity are extraordinary ministers.
In a liturgical role, there are Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, and Extraordinary ones.
And a bishop may certainly be granted Extraordinary powers, ones that are not normally powers of his office.
The Pope may grant a local bishop the power to approve episcopal candidates for open Sees in a particular geography. That power is not ordinary to bishops, but can be exercised, with proper authority, in an extraordinary fashion.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I wonder if that’s true with some of those remote languages in Africa and Asia. Maybe you’d know, having been in those areas. Seems like having to approve and maintain several hundred vernaculars can be overwhelming.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Keep in mind that he wrote Summorum Pontificum in Latin. The relevant part of the document:
Looking up “ordinaria” (feminine of “ordinarius”) in my Latin dictionary gives as definition “regular, usual”, and “extraordinarius” is defined as “supplementary, special”.
Therefore Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s usage of “ordinaria” and “extraordinaria” does in fact follow what Tim said:
It therefore follows that the OF Mass is the usual and regular form of the Roman Rite, and the EF is exceptional or non-standard usage, which the Benedict XVI widened the availability of, but still within certain limitations.
In English, “ordinary” and “extraordinary” have a wider range of definitions based on context. In this particular case we have to refer back to the Latin to discern the true meaning. Probably a better word could have been used in the translation, for example Tim’s examples of “customary” and “non-standard” would have been clearer.
- Status