FSSP questions

[rtconstant]

I was on the FSSP site the other day and it got me thinking. How does becoming an FSSP priest work? Most diocese in America to my knowledge have limited TLM’s. So what does a priest who specializes in the TLM do in this case? Or does the FSSP train their students in the NO to?

 

[Caesar]

I was on the FSSP site the other day and it got me thinking. How does becoming an FSSP priest work? Most diocese in America to my knowledge have limited TLM’s. So what does a priest who specializes in the TLM do in this case? Or does the FSSP train their students in the NO to?

No, the FSSP deals strictly with the Traditional Mass. Their priests are assigned to parishes, oratories and chapels that offer the Old Rite exclusively, with permission from the local ordinaries.

For example, the TLM in my city is celebrated by one of two priests who are based out of the Queen of Angels Oratory in St. Catherines. In addition to their own Oratory, they have Masses in a couple other cities, like mine.

 

[rtconstant]

OK, that makes sense. Thanks Caesar. Do you know if they are usually well recieved by the bishops? Their seminary structure seems pretty good so it would seem that they would produce well trained priests.

 

[NoPlaceLikeRome]

I think it’s not the quality of FSSP priests but the matter of the TLM that affects the bishop’s choice. If a bishop is fond of the TLM he will invite the FSSP, else he will not.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, the FSSP deals strictly with the Traditional Mass. Their priests are assigned to parishes, oratories and chapels that offer the Old Rite exclusively, with permission from the local ordinaries.

Actually I do believe that they learn something of the normative Mass.

There was a controversy within the order a number of years ago. There were some within the order that wanted to forbid its members from celebrating the normative Mass while some within the order wanted the right to be able to celebrate it for concelebration with the bishop whose diocese they were working in, mainly the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday. Rome had to step in to ensure this right.

 

[batteddy]

But if the Tridentine rite is ever going to be normalized, such a compromise is not going to last. The Rite is not complete without the traditional Chrism Mass, and chrism for the traditional sacraments blessed in a traditional chrism mass. Right now, the chrism indult priests use is blessed in the new mass…sort of an odd mix of rites.

If it is ever going to be normalized, friendly bishops should be allowed to celebrate an NO chrism mass AND a tridentine one. Or at least a few traditional bishops (like with the personal prelature out of Campos) should consecrate a bunch of chrism (and oil of the sick and catechumens) traditionally and send it to all the indult parishes and priests in the world (like the patriarchs of the East do with the myron for their churches)…because using NO chrism is an odd mix of rites.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But if the Tridentine rite is ever going to be normalized, such a compromise is not going to last. The Rite is not complete without the traditional Chrism Mass, and chrism for the traditional sacraments blessed in a traditional chrism mass. Right now, the chrism indult priests use is blessed in the new mass…sort of an odd mix of rites.

Huh? It means nothing, chrism is chrism no matter which rite it is made under. To say this is to say that somehow that the rite is deficient, which it isn’t.

The Chrism Mass is also a moment when the priests of a diocese concelebrate with the bishop of that diocese showing unity.

Your argument here then puts forward the idea that only priests ordained in the “Traditional” rite should be celebrating the TLM as that is an “odd mix of rites” to allow those ordained in the normative rite to celebrate the TLM.

And then this idea also raises issues with the issue of bi-ritual priests.

Just a bunch of nonsense.

 

[batteddy]

No…priests can switch rites, or be bi-ritual. But those are extraordinary situations.

Ideally the Tridentine rite would be celebrated by priests ordained in that rite. I’m not saying it’s somehow a “more valid” ordination or anything, just that the Rite forms an organic whole heritage that should not be spliced with parts isolated or sewn together like pieces in a museum.

I don’t like it when, for example, a novus ordo parish has a Tridentine Mass once a month, or even once a week, or even daily…if they don’t also use the old Office and old Sacraments. In such a setting, tradition dies.

For the Mass forms only one part of a whole heritage. Salvaging just that one part, the Mass, once a month to appease people…is pointless. The Rite has a whole Office that goes along with it in an organic unity, as well as traditional forms of the Sacraments, Blessings, Sacramentals, devotions etc…you cannot simply insert the mass, isolated from the whole rest of the Rite, into the new setting. It just won’t work.

Sure, any chrism is good. But as part of the whole tradition, to manifest the complete heritage, ideally some traditional chrism masses would be celebrated around the world.

Eastern Catholics generally use chrism blessed in an Eastern Rite, don’t they? The local latin bishop doesnt usually say, “No, just use ours.” That would be offensive even if the chrism is “as good” or valid.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Eastern Catholics generally use chrism blessed in an Eastern Rite, don’t they? The local latin bishop doesnt usually say, “No, just use ours.” That would be offensive even if the chrism is “as good” or valid.

Apples and oranges.

Eastern Catholics are members of a different Church and yes, they may receive different chrism with the anointing of the sick if a Latin priests does it because of issues with their own priest being able to do it.

The Latin Church is the Latin Church, those who prefer the TLM are still members of the Latin Church. There is only one Chrism Mass in a diocese on Holy Thursday. What you are proposing would do two things. Make the bishop celebrate two different Chrism Masses on Holy Thursday and destroy the unity of him concelebrating with all his priests. Not only do the priests show unity with the bishop by concelebrating at the Chrism Mass but they also show unity with each other.

 

[batteddy]

Ah, but there you have described precisely the crisis for the Latin Church: It changed Rites.

The pope is proposing to make one the “ordinary” and one the “extraordinary” Latin Rite…but really they are two rites. Now, i am not suggesting a second sui juris church…but perhaps it should be treated more like the old other Western rites, the Ambrosian for example, or like the Religious Order Rites like the Dominican or Carmelite.

You wouldnt expect someone celebrating the Dominican Rite to not be a professed Dominican, or not ordained in that rite. So too…priests who celebrate the Tridentine should usually be ordained in that rite, probably incardinated in institutes that specifically use that Rite as normative for them.

You wouldnt expect someone in Milan using the Ambrosian rite to be using chrism blessed in another rite. Maybe some diocese that really want it, like Milan for the Ambrosian, should be exclusively Tridentine even if they are within the Latin Church so there is no mix of rites under one bishop. Campos tried it, but they replaced it with a Novus Ordo diocese and turned the traditionalists into a personal prelature…

But rites and heritages shouldnt be mixed like this. The Novus Ordo is a different bird, and it’s attempts at “neo-latinization” of the Old Rite are as offensive to me as latinization of the Eastern Rites should be to Catholics.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ah, but there you have described precisely the crisis for the Latin Church: It changed Rites.

I disagree with you here.

The pope is proposing to make one the “ordinary” and one the “extraordinary” Latin Rite…but really they are two rites. Now, i am not suggesting a second sui juris church…but perhaps it should be treated more like the old other Western rites, the Ambrosian for example, or like the Religious Order Rites like the Dominican or Carmelite.

Ah, but these rites only are different in the Eucharistic Liturgy and most of the time these orders celebrate the Latin rite in a parish Church. They also concelebrate at the Chrism Mass as there is no separate one for them.

You wouldnt expect someone celebrating the Dominican Rite to not be a professed Dominican, or not ordained in that rite. So too…priests who celebrate the Tridentine should usually be ordained in that rite, probably incardinated in institutes that specifically use that Rite as normative for them.

There is no separate ordination rite to the religious order rites, just the Eucharistic Liturgy is slightly modified.

But rites and heritages shouldnt be mixed like this. The Novus Ordo is a different bird, and it’s attempts at “neo-latinization” of the Old Rite are as offensive to me as latinization of the Eastern Rites should be to Catholics.

The rites of separate Churches should not be mixed but they are.

In the USA there is no separate jurisdiction for the Russian Byzantine Church, they are under the jurisdiction of the local Latin Ordinary. Wonder where they get their Chrism?

You hurt your argument when you brought up the religious order rites.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this but I know that Rome is on my side as it sided with the FSSP priests who wanted to be able to concelebrate at the normative Chrism Mass.

Isn’t something to ponder though, that it is some of those who prefer the TLM who want to place restrictions such as this? Yet they get upset about restrictions placed on them?

Chrism is chrism and it has nothing to do with what rite was used to create it and what rite it is used in. To say that it does means that there is some issue between the rites and then one should not receive communion in a rite that they were not baptized and confirmed in and one should not celebrate in a rite that they were not ordained it. It just opens up a huge can of worms. There is no way around this with your argument.

The Catholic Church teaches the opposite of what you argue. It teaches that a Catholic may receive the Eucharist at any Catholic rite and a Catholic may receive the other sacraments at any Catholic rite without it effecting their Church membership. That is a Byzantine Catholic could have been baptized, confirmed, and received first Eucharist in the Latin Church but they would still be a Byzantine Catholic. Your argument seems to imply that this is incorrect and I do not see how you can work around this with out admitting that Chrism is chrism.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Something else just came to mind batteddy. The organization of the Church today is a relatively new thing in the History of the Church.

Traditionally you would have one bishop per city, not the overlapping jurisdictions that we have today. So there would be one bishop and he would provide for all the parishes within his jurisdiction regardless of what rite they were. So he would make sure that the Byzantine-Ruthenian parish had a Byzantine-Ruthenian priest and the Maronite parish had a Maronite priest and so on.

So in those times there would only be one Chrism Mass celebrated by the bishop with all the priests of his diocese there and it would be in the rite of bishop.

So this idea that one must have chrism made in the same rite as it is going to be used in is foreign to the thinking of the Church.