FSSP priests as future bishops?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sure
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
otjm:
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.
No they’re not. My point was that all Bishops should be able to say both forms of the Mass.

I’ve never heard that the Tridentine Mass may only be said once a day publicly. References? There must be a reason for this. Are the curia concerned that the Tridentine Mass may become more popular than the NO and therefore feel the need to limit its use? That seems to be the only probable explanation.
 
No they’re not. My point was that all Bishops should be able to say both forms of the Mass.

I’ve never heard that the Tridentine Mass may only be said once a day publicly. References? There must be a reason for this. Are the curia concerned that the Tridentine Mass may become more popular than the NO and therefore feel the need to limit its use? That seems to be the only probable explanation.
I would agree with the other poster who stated that the comments are a bit odd. There seem to be some leaps of logic in particular posts, including the one above.

Regarding the restriction about the Tridentine Mass, I believe that the reference was to the second section of article five of Summorum Pontificum:

Art. 5. õ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.

As for the “most probable explanation” being a curial concern “that the Tridentine Mass may become more popular than the NO and therefore feel the need to limit its use,” one must recall that, by definition, a motu proprio comes from the Holy Father himself and not a congregation of the curia. Given the overall context of the MP, particularly article five, it seems more likely that B16’s concern is the disruption of existing parish Mass schedules. He does not wish to see inter-parochial battles erupt when Father X decides that all of “his” Masses will celebrated according to the EF, thus alienating some parishioners who have been coming to the 9:30 Mass for years and who might be jolted by a sudden change to the EF. This does little to advance TLM, even if it is the manner in which many of the so-called post-VII reforms were carried out. Another scenario he probably wishes to avoid is the possibility that one week the OF will be used at a scheduled Mass, and the next the EF, depending on who the celebrant is, with those attending never knowing which form will be used.

This seems to be the reason that private Masses are mentioned, since these are, by definition, not Masses where there is no congregation, but rather, Masses celebrated outside the existing parish Mass schedule.
 
In regards to orders like the FSSP saying the Novus Ordo Mass, they most definitely can. They say the Tridentine Mass out of sheer preference. If a FSSP wants to say a vernacular Novus Ordo Mass, or even a Latin Novus Ordo Mass, then he is most welcome to do so.

It would actually be against the current laws of the Church if a “traditional” order in full communion with the Holy See says that it’s members cannot celebrate the Ordinary form of the Holy Sacrifice.

It also astounds me that most of you fail to realize that a FSSP seminarian cannot be ordained if he thinks the Novus Ordo Mass invalid. He must recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass and be willing to say it if the superior or the Holy Father wants him too. Once again, the only reason why they say the Tridentine Rite over the Novus Ordo Rite is out of preference between the two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top