A
AJV
Guest
Hate to be a pedant, and this is probably completely beside the point, but they do have, for example, that there should be a large cross on the back.
- Status
A
AlexV
Guest
I know; I assumed he was talking about fiddleback designs and other such things, not “can we have a large butterfly on the back” in a '62 liturgy, etc.
R
reggieM
Guest
JKirk,
I’ll give a better example (no Alex is not correct – the bishop has the right to forbid his priest from saying Mass in Latin).
The celebration of Mass in a specific place and time is not a universal right. Nor is the use of a certain language or, if commanded, the use of certain music. If the bishop commands that a priest must permit a certain choir to sing, the priest cannot disobey that.
I’ll give a better example (no Alex is not correct – the bishop has the right to forbid his priest from saying Mass in Latin).
There is indeed, and I’ll post the Canon. For example, the bishop can command that the 10 a.m. Mass must be done in the vernacular. Let’s say that Mass is attended by 500 people and it is held in the cathedral. The bishop can regulate the liturgy. This happens at St. Peter’s Basilica, for example. A priest cannot simply decide what language and what hymns he will use for Mass at the main altar. He is required to obey the canons of the Basilica, and if he is commanded by his bishop to celebrate Mass in the vernacular, he is required to obey.
Then I don’t know how you could agree with Alex.
The celebration of Mass in a specific place and time is not a universal right. Nor is the use of a certain language or, if commanded, the use of certain music. If the bishop commands that a priest must permit a certain choir to sing, the priest cannot disobey that.
Again, the bishop can assign a priest to celebrate Mass for a Spanish language community. The priest cannot disobey can not go to that community. Nor can he celebrate Mass in Latin for them if he is commanded to use vernacular. The vernacular is a legitimate usage. The bishop is free to command its usage. The bishop is not at the mercy of his priests – his priests are not free to disobey a direct command on the liturgical celebration. That is simply a fact.
Oh he absolutely could. If he commanded that vernacular must be used, then he could punish the priest for disobedience. Vernacular is a legitimate option that a bishop has the authority to command. Since he is not commanding something evil or unlawful (the use of vernacular is lawful with the discretion of the ordinary), the priest is not free to disobey.
A
AJV
Guest
Yes, I sort of figured that out but I couldn’t help pointing that out, could I?
There are many chasubles today (without butterflies) that do not have a cross on the back but merely decorated ophreys with another monogram.
A
AJV
Guest
Isn’t it that the main altar is reserved to the Pope or a Cardinal or someone to whom he grants the priveledge?
A
AlexV
Guest
Reggie’s views are really the most bizarre we’ve seen in a long time here.
Latin isn’t just another language or toy for a bishop.
It’s the language of OUR RITE. It’s the NORM. The vernacular is, by definition, the exception.
Even if it’s used almost everywhere, with practically no seeming “exceptions”.
No bishop can ban its use, if the CURRENT books are used. No priest can ever be disciplined for using it.
Answer the question, Reggie. Can a bishop order a priest not to use the Roman Canon?
Latin isn’t just another language or toy for a bishop.
It’s the language of OUR RITE. It’s the NORM. The vernacular is, by definition, the exception.
Even if it’s used almost everywhere, with practically no seeming “exceptions”.
No bishop can ban its use, if the CURRENT books are used. No priest can ever be disciplined for using it.
Answer the question, Reggie. Can a bishop order a priest not to use the Roman Canon?
B
bear06
Guest
Wow! If that’s the most bizarre then you haven’t been reading the same threads as me. Lot’s of serious sedevacantist stuff floating around as of late.
R
reggieM
Guest
That’s what we might call a loaded question. Show me in writing where it says he can or can’t and then I’ll give you the answer you’re looking for.
R
reggieM
Guest
Well, my views on the rights of bishops to regulate the liturgical celebrations in their dioceses are “the most bizarre we’ve seen” – I would agree, bear – we perhaps may need to read some of the other threads around here.
A
AlexV
Guest
Once again, the obsession with documents…as if every possible, conceivable eventuality has been put in a rubric or canon.
I rest my case. You won’t answer the question.
I’ll answer it for the sake of the record. No, a bishop can’t ban the Roman Canon. He can’t ban Canon 2, or 3, or 4, etc.
They are UNIVERSAL OPTIONS for the Roman Rite. He can’t restrict a priest in ANY WAY from using them.
I rest my case. You won’t answer the question.
I’ll answer it for the sake of the record. No, a bishop can’t ban the Roman Canon. He can’t ban Canon 2, or 3, or 4, etc.
They are UNIVERSAL OPTIONS for the Roman Rite. He can’t restrict a priest in ANY WAY from using them.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I assure you, it came as a surprise to me.JKirk,
Then I don’t know how you could agree with Alex.
B
bear06
Guest
It would put the rest of as at peace if you would both just produce the documents that you think support your case. It’s not an obsession with documents it just the knowledge that most things can be backed up by something the masses can view. Yikes. It would seem that this should be found somewhere since it’s a popular topic.
A
AlexV
Guest
Nope, sorry, there is no document that states explicitly “No bishop may ban an option we bothered to print in the Missal of 2002, for the sake of people who think up things bishops can do to muck with the liturgy.” No document says, “No bishop may pretend he did not read the preface to our Missal that says it may be used as soon as it is published.”
The case is closed. No bishop of the Roman Rite can forbid a priest to use the legitimate, universal options of his Rite.
The case is closed. No bishop of the Roman Rite can forbid a priest to use the legitimate, universal options of his Rite.
B
bear06
Guest
OK, you have no document. How about you, Reggie?
A
AlexV
Guest
The documents you’re demanding after your usual fashion don’t exist, because Rome doesn’t produce little documents that answer every possible idea someone might conjure.
Can a bishop ban the Roman Canon in his diocese? Reggie wouldn’t answer the question.
Well guess what? No document says he can ban it…and no document explicitly says he can’t.
Go figure…Rome does expect people to have a little reasoning intellect and common sense.
You can’t ban universal options of your Rite. No bishop could tell a priest he must always use the Confiteor and never the B and C options in the Novus Ordo.
Can a bishop ban the Roman Canon in his diocese? Reggie wouldn’t answer the question.
Well guess what? No document says he can ban it…and no document explicitly says he can’t.
Go figure…Rome does expect people to have a little reasoning intellect and common sense.
You can’t ban universal options of your Rite. No bishop could tell a priest he must always use the Confiteor and never the B and C options in the Novus Ordo.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
A Letter of Bishop Fellay to Cardinal Castrillon
So the SSPX is going it explain its faith to Rome? The SSPX has another faith? That in and of itself is an admittence of heresy and schism.
A
AlexV
Guest
I’ve never seen such a quickness to shout “heresy” and “schism”, except where the SSPX is concerned.
For many who have sympathy for the SSPX…and I certainly do, even if I am not a “supporter” in the strict sense…it gets a bit bemusing to hear all about “heresy” and “schism” given what goes on in more than a few locales.
I was confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre. I had a bishop once tell me I was in “schism” because Lefebvre had confirmed me. Huh? Excuse me? Do they not have classes in this sort of thing in the seminaries?
Note: at the time he told me this, the bishop knew I was attending FSSP Masses.
The two defining moments in the late archbishop’s life were when seminarians at the French College in Rome unfurled the hammer and sickle from their windows in May of 1968, and when the apostolic visitors to Econe in 1975 challenged the historicity of the Resurrection.
You might think “emergency” too under those circumstances.
For many who have sympathy for the SSPX…and I certainly do, even if I am not a “supporter” in the strict sense…it gets a bit bemusing to hear all about “heresy” and “schism” given what goes on in more than a few locales.
I was confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre. I had a bishop once tell me I was in “schism” because Lefebvre had confirmed me. Huh? Excuse me? Do they not have classes in this sort of thing in the seminaries?
Note: at the time he told me this, the bishop knew I was attending FSSP Masses.
The two defining moments in the late archbishop’s life were when seminarians at the French College in Rome unfurled the hammer and sickle from their windows in May of 1968, and when the apostolic visitors to Econe in 1975 challenged the historicity of the Resurrection.
You might think “emergency” too under those circumstances.
B
bear06
Guest
B
BobP123
Guest
What are you and bear and kirk doing on these traditional boards anyway? You have the nerve to call us slanderers while you call us schismatics and give us some shpiel about experiencing “your” Lord as though you are the only ones worthy? Give me a break, whoever you are.
I’m personally glad I’m out of that Bogus Ordo I was attending for 26 years! What a waste. Too bad I didn’t know better.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
The irony here is that this is an open forum, for people to discuss their beliefs. You insult the majority of CA posters here who happen to be in the mainstream church (whether they attend indult TLM or novus ordo) and attend the novus ordo, and you slander us by calling it the bogus ordo.
- Status