Actually a TLM can be said anytime without the permission of the Bishop, public or private.It seems to me there are some issues of confusion that need to be resolved about the Motu Propriu… the definition of private mass (#2 and #4) (which is what Summorum Pontificum says may be said without seeking permission),
Stable group does not appear anywhere in the Latin Motu Propio, it only comes from the English mistranslation done by the USCCB.the definition of Stable Group (#5)
Yes. The same should apply both ways. Of course, give all priests a chance or recant or grasp the truth, but a priest or bishop who refuses to obey an instruction that is not immoral should not be in that office.What about Bishops who disobey the Pope when they ban the TLM in their Dioceses. Should they not be Bishops, or even Priests at all for that matter?
Right on…the translation is something closer to a “group which exists stably.”Actually a TLM can be said anytime without the permission of the Bishop, public or private.
Stable group does not appear anywhere in the Latin Motu Propio, it only comes from the English mistranslation done by the USCCB.
Fair enough.Yes. The same should apply both ways. Of course, give all priests a chance or recant or grasp the truth, but a priest or bishop who refuses to obey an instruction that is not immoral should not be in that office.
Priests should not refuse requests or instructions to say the EF and priests should not refuse to requests or instructions to say the OF.
Actually it’s more like:Right on…the translation is something closer to a “group which exists stably.”
Actually there was a stink a number of years ago when the FSSP tried to add to their constitutions that their priests were forbidden from celebrating the Ordinary Form. I believe that Pope John Paul II replaced their superior over the matter. I believe that many FSSP concelebrate the Ordinary From when they attend the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday in Diocese where they are working.So you would accuse 99% of the Priests in the ICRSS, FSSP, CRNJ, IGS, etc. of having ill-formed consciences because they refuse the offer the NO? They certaintly consider the NO valid, but they refuse the offer it nonetheless. In your opinion, what is the reason for this?
The issue here is one of obedience. These priests refused to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass when told to do so by the lawful authority. It has nothing to do with a refusal of the Bishop to allow them to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. These priests are of the diocese and not of a congregation that’s sole purpose is the celebration of the Extraordinary Form.Actually it’s more like:
A far cry from “stable group” or "group which exists stably"
Makes sense…Thanks for the clarification.Actually it’s more like:
Holy See – online:
Art. 5, § 1. In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium continenter exsistit, parochus eorum petitiones ad celebrandam sanctam Missam iuxta ritum Missalis Romani anno 1962 editi, libenter suscipiat.
USCCB – pdf online:
Art. 5, § 1. In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium stabiliter existit, parochus eorum petitiones ad celebrandam sanctam Missam iuxta ritum Missalis Romani anno 1962 editi, libenter suscipiat.
Here’s the English translation to the Holy See text provided by Fr. Z:
In parishes, where there is continuously present a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition, let the pastor willingly receive their petitions that Mass be celebrated according to the Rite of the Missale Romanum issued in 1962.
As opposed to the USCCB’s version:
In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition…
The Holy See’s text is a far cry from “stable group” or "group which exists stably"
Read this:
wdtprs.com/blog/2007/10/discrepency-in-latin-continenter-and-stabiliter-holy-see-and-usccb-texts-online-do-not-match/#comments
I am sorry but I cannot refrain my sarcasm any longer!The issue seems to be not just in the English translation though as there is some dispute over the “Stable Group” in Italy as well.
Yes I know, the Superior can’t force an FSSP Priest to say only the TLM. However, there was a poll conducted (I forget where, but I’ll find it), where it stated less than ten FSSP Priests worldwide (out of almost 200) would actually offer a NO Mass.Actually there was a stink a number of years ago when the FSSP tried to add to their constitutions that their priests were forbidden from celebrating the Ordinary Form. I believe that Pope John Paul II replaced their superior over the matter. I believe that many FSSP concelebrate the Ordinary From when they attend the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday in Diocese where they are working.
I never said anything to the contrary. But the point still stands that the USCCB’s translation of Summorum Pontificum is a poor one, and one that has caused quite a bit of confusion and controversy.The issue here is one of obedience. These priests refused to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass when told to do so by the lawful authority. It has nothing to do with a refusal of the Bishop to allow them to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. These priests are of the diocese and not of a congregation that’s sole purpose is the celebration of the Extraordinary Form.
Amusing yes.I am sorry but I cannot refrain my sarcasm any longer!
Having spent half of my life in Italy I have to share that the concept of a “stable group” is an oxymoron in Italian culture. Just look at our (Italy’s) political scenario.
I guess that the Lord graced Rome with the Vatican to give us (Italians) a sign of hope that something can be stable for 2000 years.
That’s only logical.I do have one question.
If a priest refuses to celebrate the TLM is he also suspended?
There has been an outcry, it’s just that people are so polarized that they don’t hear the quiet, “middle way.” I posted roundly criticizing Cardinal Martini’s overt, published refusal to offer the EF earlier in the year. It’s unacceptable, a prince of the Church refusing to offer the Mass in one of its legitimate forms. Certainly, priests need to be trained to offer the EF correctly, but I think any priest’s refusal to offer either form should be grounds for “well, thank you, we won’t be needing your services.” That goes for those who refuse to offer the OF as well. The argument that the OF is valid, but the priest won’t offer it is a bad one and it needs to be dealt with. Priests who offer it do NOT have to use altar girls (they aren’t required to do so by the Church), but where the indult runs that permits Communion in the hand, they DO have to permit that. If they say it’s sacreligious, then they have Trent to contend with, which stated that no discipline of the Church could lead the faithful to impiety. If they are going to cast aspersions on a Church discipline, then they should likewise be thanked and shown the door.That’s only logical.
Where’s the outcry about the “heretical” NO priests who refuse to learn/offer the TLM?
From Summorum PontificumThat’s only logical.
Where’s the outcry about the “heretical” NO priests who refuse to learn/offer the TLM?
Non one said they are heretics. But what they are is disobedient. It is not unreasonable that the Church ask all priests to be willing to celebrate a perfectly valid form of the mass. Disobedience is not just for liberals. It goes both ways.Oh yes, because those priests who so desire to say the traditional Mass that they cannot bare to celebrate an innovation and novelty must be heretics.
Remove them, it is not that hard.What about Bishops who disobey the Pope when they ban the TLM in their Dioceses. Should they not be Bishops, or even Priests at all for that matter?
The FFSP priests I know consider the Novus Ordo to be less reverent and yes parts of it like communion in the hand and the laity touching the Euchirist to be a sacrilege. That is why they joined the FSSP in the first place. They all consider the consecration to be valid and therfore in ‘good conscience’ they simply cannot bring themselves to commit what they consider to be a sacriligious act. To force the Italian priests or any priest to say the Novus Ordo is not in the best interest of anyone.What you are saying that “in good conscience” a priest would not celebrate it that means that he would consider the NO invalid or illicit. I do not see other reasons why a priest would not do so “in good conscience”.
The other take is that “in good conscience” is not that good and maybe they need a better formed conscience.
Is there a direct quote to back that up?And yet, in the moto proprio, the Pope has REQUIRED that all Catholic priests of the Roman Church to be willing to say the ordinary form.