FSSP priests as future bishops?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sure
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sure

Guest
Someone mentioned on another thread and it got me thinking…

Does anyone know if the FSSP or the Institute of Christ the King send their seminarians to Rome for advanced degrees (STl, STD, etc)? The reason I ask is that I know it is very rare for bishops to be appointed without an advanced degree (usually a doctorate) and since I think it would be great if men from these orders became bishops, I was wondering if any of them usually get advanced degrees.

Also, do either of these orders say the ordinary form of the Mass? Obviously, a bishop would need to celebrate the ordinary form as well as the extraordinary form.

Anyone know???
 
Does anyone know if the FSSP or the Institute of Christ the King send their seminarians to Rome for advanced degrees (STl, STD, etc)? The reason I ask is that I know it is very rare for bishops to be appointed without an advanced degree (usually a doctorate) and since I think it would be great if men from these orders became bishops, I was wondering if any of them usually get advanced degrees.
Click to expand...
I think there are some in both orders who go for advanced degrees, mainly to later teach at seminary, but I think there are very few.
Also, do either of these orders say the ordinary form of the Mass? Obviously, a bishop would need to celebrate the ordinary form as well as the extraordinary form.
Click to expand...
No.
 
Why would a Bishop have to celebrate the Novus Ordo? Most Bishops don’t celebrate the Tridentine Mass despite the fact that many Catholics want and prefer this.

Both Masses are just as valid as each other. Bishops should celebrate the Tridentine Mass and they should all be able to speak Latin in my opinion.

It would be unfair to say that a new Bishop MUST celebrate the Pauline Mass when most current Bishops DON’T celebrate the Tridentine Mass.
 
Dempsey1919 said:
Why would a Bishop have to celebrate the Novus Ordo? Most Bishops don’t celebrate the Tridentine Mass despite the fact that many Catholics want and prefer this.

Both Masses are just as valid as each other. Bishops should celebrate the Tridentine Mass and they should all be able to speak Latin in my opinion.

It would be unfair to say that a new Bishop MUST celebrate the Pauline Mass when most current Bishops DON’T celebrate the Tridentine Mass.
Click to expand...
I would argue bishops should be able and willing to celebrate both forms of the Latin Rite. The fact that some choose not to is unfortunate. Fortunately, many of the newer younger bishops do celebrate both. In no way, would it be unfair to require a bishop to say both forms of the Mass. And it would seem especially prudent that they say the ordinary form since it is more common.
 
Dempsey1919 said:
It would be unfair to say that a new Bishop MUST celebrate the Pauline Mass when most current Bishops DON’T celebrate the Tridentine Mass.
Click to expand...
You don’t think a bishop should celebrate the ORDINARY form of the Mass? :confused:
 
You don’t think a bishop should celebrate the ORDINARY form of the Mass?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that. I said it would be unfair to say that a Bishop MUST celebrate this Mass if he doesn’t want to. For example, if an FSSP Priest one day becomes a Bishop and he didn’t want to celebrate the NO it would be unfair to MAKE him.

I have no problems with the Pauline Mass or the Bishops who celebrate it. My point was that saying the NO should not be a requirement before an FSSP priest could become a Bishop. After all, it works both ways. Current Bishops should be able to say the Tridentine Mass aswell if this is the case.
 
Sure said:
Someone mentioned on another thread and it got me thinking…

Does anyone know if the FSSP or the Institute of Christ the King send their seminarians to Rome for advanced degrees (STl, STD, etc)? The reason I ask is that I know it is very rare for bishops to be appointed without an advanced degree (usually a doctorate) and since I think it would be great if men from these orders became bishops, I was wondering if any of them usually get advanced degrees.

Also, do either of these orders say the ordinary form of the Mass? Obviously, a bishop would need to celebrate the ordinary form as well as the extraordinary form.

Anyone know???
Click to expand...
We should pray that an FSSP priest becomes Bishop of LA or Orange County CA. That would be interesting! 😃
 
Dempsey1919 said:
After all, it works both ways. Current Bishops should be able to say the Tridentine Mass aswell if this is the case.
Click to expand...
Yes. Agreed. The FSSP “bishop” should have to be able to say the Ordinary Mass and the current bishops should have to be able to say the Extraordinary Mass.
 
A bishop who came from a Traditional Order would not have to say the ordinary form. Do you think that if the SSPX were fully regularized tomorrow that the four bishops would start saying the N.O.? Please!
We must also remember that they might be made bishops as much to safeguard their orders ability to have priests ordained (this Pope won’t live forever), and only have titular sees. In that case you side step the issue
 
I would be surprised if a priest from a Traditionalist order was consecrated a bishop after what happened with Lefebrve. The danger in having a bishop as the head of an order is that he can, essentially, start his own valid, but illicit, church if he gets fed up with Rome. As long as an order’s Superior is a priest, the Vatican has more control over the order because, if they go off the deep end, they cannot ordain more priests. Therefore, their order’s life span is limited without bishops. The Church doesn’t want to start up another SSPX fiasco.

I’m not saying traditionalists are inherently prone to schismatic acts(I consider myself a Traditionalist), but Rome will not forget Marcel Lefebrve all that quickly.

Or are you talking about an FFSP priest being made a bishop of a diocese?
 
I am curious how many bishops say regular PUBLIC daily and Sunday Masses? Many don’t.
 
deigloriam said:
A bishop who came from a Traditional Order would not have to say the ordinary form. Do you think that if the SSPX were fully regularized tomorrow that the four bishops would start saying the N.O.? Please!
We must also remember that they might be made bishops as much to safeguard their orders ability to have priests ordained (this Pope won’t live forever), and only have titular sees. In that case you side step the issue
Click to expand...
This is a good point and I agree that IF a traditionalist order had a bishop as a leader then he should not have to be able to say the OF. I was wondering specifically about a Traditionalist order priest being made a diocesan bishop. I think any diocesan bishop ought to be able and willing to say either form of the Latin Rite Mass.
 
Windmill said:
I would be surprised if a priest from a Traditionalist order was consecrated a bishop after what happened with Lefebrve. The danger in having a bishop as the head of an order is that he can, essentially, start his own valid, but illicit, church if he gets fed up with Rome. As long as an order’s Superior is a priest, the Vatican has more control over the order because, if they go off the deep end, they cannot ordain more priests. Therefore, their order’s life span is limited without bishops. The Church doesn’t want to start up another SSPX fiasco.

I’m not saying traditionalists are inherently prone to schismatic acts(I consider myself a Traditionalist), but Rome will not forget Marcel Lefebrve all that quickly.

Or are you talking about an FFSP priest being made a bishop of a diocese?
Click to expand...
That is a very interesting point and perhaps that has something to do with it. Although, are there really any orders that are headed by their own bishop??? It would seem that traditionally the superior general of an order is a only a priest. And maybe that has been as a safeguard against any order separating from the Church?
 
thedavidwilson said:
We should pray that an FSSP priest becomes Bishop of LA or Orange County CA. That would be interesting! 😃
Click to expand...
How about Archbishop of San Francisco? I bet he wouldn’t give communion to cross-dressing mock ‘sisters’!
 
I don’t know if they have their own bishop, I mean one that originated from their seminary, but I hope they’ll have more seminarians to be priests.

The FSSP and ICKSP does not celebrate the NOM.

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christus
Instaurare omnia in Christo
 
Dempsey1919 said:
I didn’t say that. I said it would be unfair to say that a Bishop MUST celebrate this Mass if he doesn’t want to. For example, if an FSSP Priest one day becomes a Bishop and he didn’t want to celebrate the NO it would be unfair to MAKE him.

I have no problems with the Pauline Mass or the Bishops who celebrate it. My point was that saying the NO should not be a requirement before an FSSP priest could become a Bishop. After all, it works both ways. Current Bishops should be able to say the Tridentine Mass aswell if this is the case.
Click to expand...
The English liturgy, the NO , is the regular ordinary liturgy of the Latin rite. Anyone who is made a bishop of that rite needs to be able and willing to offer that liturgy for the people in his diocese.

I suppose , theoretically, an eastern rite individual could be made a bishop in the Latin rite as well. But that really wouldn’t make it prudent for him to abandon the rite that the people expect him to say mass in.

Its the same situation here, I suppose anything is possible, but would it ever actually be done? I can’t see any one who refuses to say the liturgy the people expect to hear, actually be selected as a bishop to lead them.
 
proud2bcatholic said:
I think there are some in both orders who go for advanced degrees, mainly to later teach at seminary, but I think there are very few.

No.
Click to expand...
If you are saying “no”, the FSSP do not say the OF, you might want to recall that Rome hauled the order up short when some priests had sought permission to do so and were denied; Rome in no uncertain terms told the order that the priests could not be forbidden to do so. And in his letter accompanying the MP, he states: “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.”
 
Dempsey1919 said:
Why would a Bishop have to celebrate the Novus Ordo? Most Bishops don’t celebrate the Tridentine Mass despite the fact that many Catholics want and prefer this.

Both Masses are just as valid as each other. Bishops should celebrate the Tridentine Mass and they should all be able to speak Latin in my opinion.

It would be unfair to say that a new Bishop MUST celebrate the Pauline Mass when most current Bishops DON’T celebrate the Tridentine Mass.
Click to expand...
Considering that the Pope went out of his way to make certain that the Ordinary Form remains that, and the Extrordinary form may only be said once a day publicly, your comments are very strange.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top