K
Kearney
Guest
Anybody know if FSSP priest are permitted to say the NO mass? What about the chrism mass on Holy Thursday?
- Status
C
Cluny
Guest
A Priest wouldn’t be celebrating the Chrism mass.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
No, he would be concelebrating.
It is my understanding that some FSSP priests do concelebrate the Holy Thursday Chrism Mass with the bishop who diocese they are working in.
There was an issue within the FSSP a number of years ago when the, then, superior tried to forbid this. Rome intervened.
F
Freshman88
Guest
That’s really interesting. Think you could be so kind as to dig up a link? I wouldn’t mind to read the specifics (especially since I’m considering this order).
Thanks.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Check this out.
Msgr. Perl’s Statement to FIUV, November 1999
Main point in is paragraph 3 where it states…
These responses constitute a statement on the juridical level: those who have the privilege of celebrating according to the liturgical books in use prior to the reform of Paul VI do not lose for that reason the right to celebrate according to the Missal of Paul VI - a right which belongs to every priest of the Roman rite. It is nowhere stated that these priests are obliged to do this, but that they have the right, and that no superior can forbid them from doing what the general law of the Church allows them to do. “An exclusive right” to celebrate according to the 1962 books does not exist and has never existed, and no official text makes such a mention.
Sort of a reverse of Summorum Pontificum which states that every priest has the right to celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missal.
That is just one of the documents that is found here, Documents relating to Protocol 1411 which you can read to get a whole sense of the issue.
Msgr. Perl’s Statement to FIUV, November 1999
Main point in is paragraph 3 where it states…
These responses constitute a statement on the juridical level: those who have the privilege of celebrating according to the liturgical books in use prior to the reform of Paul VI do not lose for that reason the right to celebrate according to the Missal of Paul VI - a right which belongs to every priest of the Roman rite. It is nowhere stated that these priests are obliged to do this, but that they have the right, and that no superior can forbid them from doing what the general law of the Church allows them to do. “An exclusive right” to celebrate according to the 1962 books does not exist and has never existed, and no official text makes such a mention.
Sort of a reverse of Summorum Pontificum which states that every priest has the right to celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missal.
That is just one of the documents that is found here, Documents relating to Protocol 1411 which you can read to get a whole sense of the issue.
B
bubba451
Guest
Respectfully, isn’t this question BEST asked directly to the FSSP rather than to this chatbox? I am unaware of any, but I do not know for certain. Ask the Fraternity directly.
fssp.org/en/contact.htm
fssp.org/en/contact.htm
R
RUINATION_IPA
Guest
I have spoken to an FSSP Priest personally on this topic and other slanderous topics. But first, for the record Fr. Berg, District Superior of the FSSP, has addressed this issue in an interview with Brian Mershon in the Remnant. It is PERMISSABLE for the Priests of the FSSP to concelebrate at the Chrism Mass, as it is with any Priest, but to date no Fraternity Priest has thought it a meaningful way to show ‘communion’ as if they are in some sort of imperfect communion which is non-sense.
I have spoken to a Priest of the Fraternity locally about a ridiculous rumor that FSSP Priests were required to say a Novus Ordo Mass at least once a month. I apologized to the Priest in advance of asking such a ridiculous question but the Priest was more than willing to tell me that this is simply not the case and that NO PRIEST CAN EVER BE ‘FORCED’ (or otherwise coerced) INTO SAYING A N.O. MASS. He did say that since the Pope has deemed that there are two expressions of the same rite that just as any priest can say the latin mass - any priest can say the NO as well - it’s an option only. But trying to make a traditional Priest say the NO would be like trying to force a Byzantine rite Priest to say the NO to show communion which is utterly silly.
I have spoken to a Priest of the Fraternity locally about a ridiculous rumor that FSSP Priests were required to say a Novus Ordo Mass at least once a month. I apologized to the Priest in advance of asking such a ridiculous question but the Priest was more than willing to tell me that this is simply not the case and that NO PRIEST CAN EVER BE ‘FORCED’ (or otherwise coerced) INTO SAYING A N.O. MASS. He did say that since the Pope has deemed that there are two expressions of the same rite that just as any priest can say the latin mass - any priest can say the NO as well - it’s an option only. But trying to make a traditional Priest say the NO would be like trying to force a Byzantine rite Priest to say the NO to show communion which is utterly silly.
M
malphono
Guest
As far as I am aware, that is quite correct. An FSSP (or ICRSS) priest cannot be forced or otherwise coerced to celebrate the OF but he may do so. Just as other Latin Rite priests have the option to offer the EF.
I’ve heard of at least one case where an FSSP priest has done the OF, but there I believe the OF was done as a “reform of the reform” in Latin and ad orientem.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Not really a “reform of the reform” as those are true options for the OF, even if some people do not wish to admit that.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Seeing as how “reform of the reform” proponent, unlike the initial post-VII “reformers,” are committed to obeying Holy Mother Church, that phrase does practically mean the OF celebrated in greater continuity with the EF, which can be done on a long sliding scale. They are reforming what was (wrongly) handed down to them as the reformed liturgy, and are divided as to whether the books themselves need to be changed or just more tightly and traditionally implemented.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, of course they are true options, but were hardly ever used. And yes, there are those who steadfastly refuse to admit those options exist in the OF (usually the same people who turn green at the thought of the EF). That’s why it’s the “reform of the reform” in quotes.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, quite so.
F
Freshman88
Guest
How kind of you Byzcath! I’ll be sure to read it
- Status