Italian Priests Suspended

[EddieArent]

Yet another dry martyrdom for Tradition. May God bless these priests!

 

[Aramis]

Is there a direct quote to back that up?

Read Article 1 of Summorum Pontificum. Two uses of one rite. The 1970 missal is the legis orandi

Further, the accompanying letter states:

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. 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.

from: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html entitled:
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE POSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970

 

[jj2011]

Read Article 1 of Summorum Pontificum. Two uses of one rite. The 1970 missal is the legis orandi

Further, the accompanying letter states:

from: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html entitled:
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE POSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970

From reports I have read, 600 people wanted the TLM in one of the parishes, while three showed up for the NO. You really think that’s why Benedict XVI went to the trouble of this motu proprio business?

BTW, how would you feel about two uses of the Byzantine Rite, one traditional and the other Latinized, novusordoized and Bugninified?

 

[Sure]

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.

Priests of the Roman Rite when requested by their bishop to say a particular form of the Mass (PROVIDED THAT THEY STILL HAVE THE FREEDOM TO ALSO SAY THE OTHER FORM) ought to obey their bishop. They have NO valid reason to refuse such a request. This goes both ways. IF a priest is asked to say the TLM in addition to his NO Masses, he should obey. IF a priest is asked to say the NO Mass in addition to the TLM, he should obey. This is fulfilling the spirit of what Pope Benedict has written.

Your comment about the FSSP priests refusing to say the NO is disturbing and (I hope) probably untrue. Are you saying that if they were asked to also say a NO Mass, they would refuse and not say Mass at all??? Such an act (like the Italian priests) is drastically opposed to the idea that there are 2 holy forms of the roman rite. I’d love to hear an actual statement from an FSSP priest confirming what you say about them.

 

[East_and_West]

Why do people have such a problem with obedience to the Church?

 

[stmaria]

Priests of the Roman Rite when requested by their bishop to say a particular form of the Mass (PROVIDED THAT THEY STILL HAVE THE FREEDOM TO ALSO SAY THE OTHER FORM) ought to obey their bishop. They have NO valid reason to refuse such a request. This goes both ways. IF a priest is asked to say the TLM in addition to his NO Masses, he should obey. IF a priest is asked to say the NO Mass in addition to the TLM, he should obey. This is fulfilling the spirit of what Pope Benedict has written.

Your comment about the FSSP priests refusing to say the NO is disturbing and (I hope) probably untrue. Are you saying that if they were asked to also say a NO Mass, they would refuse and not say Mass at all??? Such an act (like the Italian priests) is drastically opposed to the idea that there are 2 holy forms of the roman rite. I’d love to hear an actual statement from an FSSP priest confirming what you say about them.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

An FSSP priest would never openly say that they wouldn’t say the OF of the Mass. But when you get to know them personally they will share their feelings once they get to know you.
This cannot be overlooked. Many of them were once associated with Archbishop Lefebvre. Many have been trained in Traditional seminaries. They chose to say the Traditional Mass for a reason. They do not believe that the Novus Ordo is a reverent Mass. They don’t want to have anything to do with communion in the hand or lay extraordinary ministers.
Have you ever heard a sermon by a FSSP priest? Sometimes I feel that they are looking over their shoulder.But they have the courage to speak there minds. They have sermons on the Syllabus of Errors, the secrets of Fatima, Pope Leo’s encyclical on freemasonry, abortion, contraception etc. In other words their sermons are just the opposite of what you get at the OF.
They are simply a different kind of priest. As you know communion in the hand was introduced to the Mass as an abuse of the Holy Eucharist and the priests I know still consider it to be just that.

Right on! I can associate with your comments of Truth based on personal experience. StMaria I quite enjoy reading your insightful posts.

 

[TMC]

As you know communion in the hand was introduced to the Mass as an abuse of the Holy Eucharist and the priests I know still consider it to be just that.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that it is currently an abuse? I can’t agree with that.

Do you mean that it was sometimes done before it was approved, and that was an abuse? I agree with that, but it does not mean there is anything wrong with the practice today.

Do you mean that its first introduction was an abuse? I don’t agree with that because it was used by at least some in the early Church, and I don’t think it was an abuse then.

But none of those are a reason for a priest to refuse it now.

 

[stmaria]

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that it is currently an abuse? I can’t agree with that.

To some it still is.

Do you mean that it was sometimes done

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

From reports I have read, 600 people wanted the TLM in one of the parishes, while three showed up for the NO. You really think that’s why Benedict XVI went to the trouble of this motu proprio business?

BTW, how would you feel about two uses of the Byzantine Rite, one traditional and the other Latinized, novusordoized and Bugninified?

Nice use of new words

 

[Sure]

An FSSP priest would never openly say that they wouldn’t say the OF of the Mass. But when you get to know them personally they will share their feelings once they get to know you.
This cannot be overlooked. Many of them were once associated with Archbishop Lefebvre. Many have been trained in Traditional seminaries. They chose to say the Traditional Mass for a reason. They do not believe that the Novus Ordo is a reverent Mass. They don’t want to have anything to do with communion in the hand or lay extraordinary ministers.
Have you ever heard a sermon by a FSSP priest? Sometimes I feel that they are looking over their shoulder.But they have the courage to speak there minds. They have sermons on the Syllabus of Errors, the secrets of Fatima, Pope Leo’s encyclical on freemasonry, abortion, contraception etc. In other words their sermons are just the opposite of what you get at the OF.
They are simply a different kind of priest. As you know communion in the hand was introduced to the Mass as an abuse of the Holy Eucharist and the priests I know still consider it to be just that.

stmaria,

It is concerning that FSSP priests would maintain this attitude despite Pope Benedict’s specific condemnation of such a thing. The Holy Father said, "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.” Such an attitude goes directly against the Holy Father’s wishes because you are saying that they don’t celebrate the NO Mass as a matter of principle.

The FSSP are priests of the roman rite and as such they should be willing to embrace the entirety of it’s liturgies not just the one’s they personally like. And this goes for ALL roman rite priests whether they are traditionalists or liberal-leaning. If a bishop requested an NO priest to say a TLM he should abide by that request, even if he prefers to say the NO. As long as the bishop does not attempt to limit him from saying the TLM or the NO, there is absolutely no problem asking a priest to say the other form.

 

[stmaria]

QUOTE=Sure;3028465]

It is concerning that FSSP priests would maintain this attitude despite Pope Benedict’s specific condemnation of such a thing. The Holy Father said, "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.” Such an attitude goes directly against the Holy Father’s wishes because you are saying that they don’t celebrate the NO Mass as a matter of principle.

Just the fact that Pope Benedict brings up the issue shows that this is a hot topic. There are probably some younger FSSP or Christ the King priests that might say the New Mass if asked but I believe the older ones will do everything they can to avoid it.

The FSSP are priests of the roman rite and as such they should be willing to embrace the entirety of it’s liturgies not just the one’s they personally like.

I don’t believe that in the real world they are willing to embrace it.

]

 

[Sure]

Just the fact that Pope Benedict brings up the issue shows that this is a hot topic. There are probably some younger FSSP or Christ the King priests that might say the New Mass if asked but I believe the older ones will do everything they can to avoid it.

I don’t believe that in the real world they are willing to embrace it.

]

I agree that in reality many FSSP might not embrace such a request. Also, many NO priests would not embrace a request to learn or say the TLM. In both cases, I think that is very unfortunate. I think both are obligated as priests of the roman rite to be open to celebrating the other form if it is requested or if there is a good pastoral reason. I am hopeful that many of the young seminarians seem very open to embracing both forms - clearly this is exactly what the Holy Father desires!

 

[Arnobius]

It was done for a while in the early church but as people became more aware of the sacredness it was banned.
At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation Ulrich Zwingli believed that the Eucharist was merely symbolic. To prove this he ordered that communion be given in the hand.

 

[contramundum7]

]

What does the pope have to say about this?

 

[SemperFidelis]

What does the pope have to say about this?

About what, my bracket?

 

[TMC]

Some priests and laity in good conscience still consider it to be an abuse or at least a very irreverent way to receive Christ considering that this is why the Protestant reformers did it, to prove that by touching the host it was just mere bread.

How is their refusal to give Communion in the hand any different than a priest refusing to allow the communicant to kneel, or to receive on the tongue? It has been discussed ad nauseum that a priest cannot refuse to allow kneeling to receive or refuse to allow receiption on the tongue. I agree that both are valid and licit and just because a priest does not think that posture or method is appropriate is not a reason for that priest to refuse them. Why doesn’t the same rule apply the other way?

 

[Arnobius]

About what, my bracket?

You know what a stickler the Pope is for proper punctuation!

More seriously, I suspect he meant the material enclosed in the brackets and the quote came off not working properly

 

[stmaria]

Arnobius;3028594]
It does not follow from this, however that the Catholic use of this practice is the same as the Zwinglian belief.

Why was this “Catholic use” started in 1965? It had been banned for centuries.

The reception in the hand or on the tongue is a discipline, not a doctrine, and as such is something the Church can make changes to to serve the needs of the Christian believers

.

Yes it is a discipline that involves dogma { that the host is the Body and Blood of Christ}
You said “to serve the needs of the Christian believers” did you mean Catholic believers? I don’t see any upside to communion in the hand. I believe that it has caused many Catholics to believe that the Eucharist is merely symbolic.

Your argument i

s remarkably similar to the claim that some Protestants make that "Christmas is on 12/25, the pagan Roman feast to Sol Invictus was on 12/25, therefore the Catholics brought pagan practices into the Church.

It is not just my argument. Even Pope Paul agreed that communion on the tongue should be the law before he caved in to the liberals and approved it in 1972

.Memoriale Domini
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

"Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places **this practice has been introduced without prior approval **having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.
Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]
…A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.
Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, **the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion **to the faithful.:

 

[Arnobius]

You will notice that Paul VI refers to the placing of the host on the tongue as a custom, so that does not really support your contention. Moreover the context needs to be noted. the Pope was addressing an abuse, not the use. It does not follow from the condemnation of the abuse that the proper use must have those elements.

Playing with semantics seems to be the best you can do. I will deny any false-ecumenical meaning that you seem to want to imply for using the word Christian.