Italian Priests Suspended

[SemperFidelis]

This thread is in relation to the other thread I started about Italy and the TLM:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=201962

THREE ITALIAN PRIESTS SUSPENDED FOR REFUSING TO CELEBRATE THE NOVUS ORDO

Italian bishop suspends priests for insisting on Latin Mass

Rome, Nov. 26, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Bishop Renato Corti of Novara, Itay, has suspended 3 priests who refused to celebrate Mass on Sunday, according to the newspaper La Stampa.

Fathers Alberto Secci, Stefano Coggiola and Marco Pizzocchi refused to celebrate Sunday Masses after Bishop Corti said that they could not exclusively celebrate the traditional Latin Mass.

In Father Alberto Secci’s parish, parishioners insisted that they would only attend a traditional Latin Mass celebrated by Father Secci. Six hundred people signed a petition in support of their parish priest.

Father Stefano Coggiola’s parishioners were reportedly divided over their pastor’s decision. While one group supported the priest’s decision, another complained that their children did not like the Mass celebrated in Latin.

Here’s the link to the story:

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=54959

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

These priests could always joing the FSSP, no?

 

[Aramis]

These priests could always joing the FSSP, no?

No. Not until they are willing to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the mass.

See, it’s not just the Bishop they are disobeying, but also the Pope. I suspect that if they don’t recant, they may find themselves off to some remote monastery…

 

[Caesar]

No. Not until they are willing to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the mass.

See, it’s not just the Bishop they are disobeying, but also the Pope. I suspect that if they don’t recant, they may find themselves off to some remote monastery…

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.

 

[Aramis]

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.

Never said they’re heretics. They are in disobedience to both their bishop and to the Pope. That’s not heresy.

Justifying said disobedience might be…

 

[mardukm]

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.

In addition to what brother Aramis stated, these priests have NOT been forbidden to say the Mass in Latin. So what is the problem?

Blessings

 

[Dempsey1919]

These Priests are wrong for refusing to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae. I never attend the Novus Ordo but I do recognise its validity and if I were unable to attend the Tridentine Mass, I would definitely attend the Pauline Mass.

These Priests have a duty to their parishioners and must be prepared to celebrate the Mass that the parishioners want. Even if 5 parishoners want to attend the New Mass on Sundays, the Priest should say it for them.

The Holy Father has said that both Masses should be treated with equal respect; these Priests by their actions are being disobedient to the Pope.

 

[palmas85]

These Priests are wrong for refusing to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae. I never attend the Novus Ordo but I do recognise its validity and if I were unable to attend the Tridentine Mass, I would definitely attend the Pauline Mass.

These Priests have a duty to their parishioners and must be prepared to celebrate the Mass that the parishioners want. Even if 5 parishoners want to attend the New Mass on Sundays, the Priest should say it for them.

The Holy Father has said that both Masses should be treated with equal respect; these Priests by their actions are being disobedient to the Pope.

Apparently in at least one of these cases the congregation wanted the Traditional Mass and the Bishop forbade the Priest from saying it. That flies directly in the face of the Motu Proprio. As I read it the Priest does not require the permission of the Bishop to celebrate the Traditional Mass. Sounds suspicious.

It seems to me as if there is something else to this story that isn’t being reported.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I do have one question.

If a priest refuses to celebrate the TLM is he also suspended?

 

[SemperFidelis]

I can’t remember where I read this (I’m sure I’ll find it soon), but the Bishop sent a Priest to one of parishes to offer the NO at its usual time. A bunch of parishioners stood outside the parish and left as the Priest walked up, realizing he wasn’t coming to say the TLM. There were only a couple of old ladies in the parish when the Priest walked in. Before the start of the Mass, the old women “berated” the Bishop to the Priest, and then walked out before the start of Mass leaving no one in the parish to attend Mass.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I do have one question.

If a priest refuses to celebrate the TLM is he also suspended?

I believe he can if it is requested/required by the Bishop. However, if it is just a “request” by the parishoners, I do not think he can be suspended.

 

[stmaria]

I hope Pope Benedict gets involved in this incident. I would like him to make a definitive decision as to whether a priest can refuse to say the New Mass if that priest could not do so according to his conscience I know for fact, that there are many priests of the FSSP that would refuse to say the Novus Ordo if told to do so by their Bishop. They could never, in good conscience, bring themselves to give communion in the hand or allow the laity to distribute communion because they consider it to be a sacrilege.
They also consider the pop music in the Mass to be irreverent and they believe that altar girls have no place in the sancturay.

 

[AJV]

They could never, in good conscience, bring themselves to give communion in the hand or allow the laity to distribute communion because they consider it to be a sacrilege.
They also consider the pop music in the Mass to be irreverent and they believe that altar girls have no place in the sancturay.

The last 3 they do not have to do in the OF. In any case though, I suppose they would exercise the preference for the EF due to more reasons.

 

[Cristiano]

I would like him to make a definitive decision as to whether a priest can refuse to say the New Mass if that priest could not do so according to his conscience I know for fact, that there are many priests of the FSSP that would refuse to say the Novus Ordo if told to do so by their Bishop.

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.

 

[SemperFidelis]

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.

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?

 

[Sure]

I hope Pope Benedict gets involved in this incident. I would like him to make a definitive decision as to whether a priest can refuse to say the New Mass if that priest could not do so according to his conscience I know for fact, that there are many priests of the FSSP that would refuse to say the Novus Ordo if told to do so by their Bishop. They could never, in good conscience, bring themselves to give communion in the hand or allow the laity to distribute communion because they consider it to be a sacrilege.
They also consider the pop music in the Mass to be irreverent and they believe that altar girls have no place in the sancturay.

Would you equally defend a priest who, in good conscience, refuses to say the TLM? Even when asked by his bishop?

I think Pope Benedict will clarify this because it is obvious that he wants ALL priests to embrace ALL forms of the roman rite and not to pick and choose what they like best.

Also, if you really know FSSP priests who would refuse a request from their bishop to say a lawfully promulgated Mass of the latin rite, then I am very sad indeed for the FSSP. Such men should not be priests.

 

[Arnobius]

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), the definition of Stable Group (#5) and spelling out the role of the bishop (of whom the letter accompanying the motu Propriu says:
In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.)

Given the disagreement over what is meant, a clarification seems to be needed to prevent abuses from either side.

 

[SemperFidelis]

So you would accuse 99% of the Priests in the ICRSS, FSSP, CRNJ, IGS, etc. of having ill-formed consciences because they refuse to offer the NO? They certaintly consider the NO valid, but they refuse to offer it nonetheless. In your opinion, what is the reason for this?

Grammar Corrected. Geez, I’m usually really on top of my game in this department.

 

[TMC]

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.

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?

I think that if they cannot in good conscience celebrate the Novus Ordo and their bishop requires them to do so, they probably need to be moved. I don’t think they can stay and be openly disobedient.

I agree that they are wrong and acting against Church doctrine, but I don’t think the Church can force them to act against conscience. I suppose they could be suspended for disobedience, or for denying the validity of NO (if they have) but how does that help anyone? I don’t have all the details, obv, but sounds like both sides are handling this poorly. I’m sure plenty of parishes need more EF qualified priests. Maybe the bishop needs them and get anything in ‘trade’? IMO, its ridiculous that grown men that probably agree on 99.5% of faith issues, and supposedly have the parishoners interests in mind, can’t work this out behind doors instead of in the papers.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Such men should not be priests.

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?