Priest response to TLM leaves me stunned

[NewEnglandPriest]

Not so…the priest can decide to say a TLM and if people want to attend that is perfectly licit. In this case he does not require the bishops approval. This is how SP has been interpreted.

Yes, but he must also observe canon 905 which states a priest is not say more than 1 Mass per day or with the bishop’s permission 2 Masses on a weekday or 3 on a Sunday.

 

[Stylites]

That is incorrect. SSPX priests lack faculties. While valid their Masses are still illicit.

Thanks for the correction. How ironic to think that some people are so upset over an illicit Mass that they run over to an illicit Mass while at the same time endangering their souls with heresy and schism.

 

[benedictgal]

Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. When I attend the wedding feast, my eyes are upon the Bridegroom, not whether the flowers are arranged perfectly or what some other wedding guests are doing or wearing, or whether the hearts of others are as pure as mine.

Stylites, even the Bridegroom calls for the rubrics to be followed. Jesus never condemned the rubrics of the sacrificial cultic worship of Ancient Israel because these were given directly by His own Father and God is not going to contradict Himself. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not some free form exercise in creativity. You may not think that the rubrics are important, but, they are. The Church has said so time and time again.

Believe me, I can understand the frustration of the OP because I am living it right now. But, as frustrated as I am with the state of things in my own diocese, I need to stay with Peter and not follow a splinter group. I also need to work within the paramters and the remedies given by the Church.

When things like this happen, you don’t take your ball and go to another playground. You stay and work with what has been given to you. As I said before, the wheels of Rome grind slowly, but, they grind finely.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The traditional order seminaries are full.

Mormon seminaries are full too. Does that testify to the truth of Mormonism?

 

[Stylites]

Stylites, even the Bridegroom calls for the rubrics to be followed. Jesus never condemned the rubrics of the sacrificial cultic worship of Ancient Israel because these were given directly by His own Father and God is not going to contradict Himself. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not some free form exercise in creativity. You may not think that the rubrics are important, but, they are. The Church has said so time and time again.

Believe me, I can understand the frustration of the OP because I am living it right now. But, as frustrated as I am with the state of things in my own diocese, I need to stay with Peter and not follow a splinter group.

Yes, the rubrics are very important, and in a perfect world there would be nothing irregular happening. I just want to point out that the rubrics are not as important as the graces which flow from them; regardless of their imperfection they are still vehicles of grace to those who are receptive.

 

[cathdoki]

He is right. A priest has to be approved for celebrating in the EF before he can.

NO HE DOES NOT. NOT WITH THE LATEST STATEMENTS FROM BENEDICT XVI.

No permission is needed from the bishop.

 

[ConstantineTG]

What I do not get about SSPX and their Traditionalist supporters is that when a priest or bishop in the OF does their thing and introduces an abuse, suddenly they are to be avoided like a plague and Traditionalists are up in arms denouncing said priest and/or bishop and pledging allegiance to the Pope directly.

But when Bishop Lefebvre disobeys the same Pope but hides behind the mask of Traditionalism, suddenly he’s hailed as a hero by the same Traditionalists.

So I guess its okay to disobey the Pope as long as it fits your agenda

 

[ConstantineTG]

NO HE DOES NOT. NOT WITH THE LATEST STATEMENTS FROM BENEDICT XVI.

No permission is needed from the bishop.

Dude, read the whole thread before making false comments like that. Its uncharitable to lead other Catholics to error.

But here’s a brief for you:
a. SP (the document you are talking about) only says a priest has a right to celebrate the EF in a private Mass without permission
b. A bishop’s control in his diocese includes all the Masses that are celebrated in his diocese. Even the Pope cannot supersede the authority of a bishop in his own diocese in matters that are appropriate to the bishop. This is in the canon law
c. A priest needs to prove they can celebrate Mass in the EF properly before they are allowed to celebrate this publicly.

 

[cathdoki]

The pope specifically addressed the world’s bishops in a separate letter indicating that individual priests do NOT need the permission of their bishop to celebrate the TLM. That’s it. Whether you believe it or not is of no consequence to the truth.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, the rubrics are very important, and in a perfect world there would be nothing irregular happening. I just want to point out that the rubrics are not as important as the graces which flow from them; regardless of their imperfection they are still vehicles of grace to those who are receptive.

However, with all due respect, this is the point that I believe you are missing. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[5.] The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart. A merely external observation of norms would obviously be contrary to the nature of the Sacred Liturgy, in which Christ Himself wishes to gather His Church, so that together with Himself she will be “one body and one spirit”.12 For this reason, external action must be illuminated by faith and charity, which unite us with Christ and with one another and engender love for the poor and the abandoned. The liturgical words and rites, moreover, are a faithful expression, matured over the centuries, of the understanding of Christ, and they teach us to think as He Himself does;13 by conforming our minds to these words, we raise our hearts to the Lord. All that is said in this Instruction is directed toward such a conformity of our own understanding with that of Christ, as expressed in the words and the rites of the Liturgy.

[6.] For abuses “contribute to the obscuring of the Catholic faith and doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament”.14 Thus, they also hinder the faithful from “re-living in a certain way the experience of the two disciples of Emmaus: ‘and their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him’”.15 For in the presence of God’s power and divinity16 and the splendor of His goodness, made manifest especially in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, it is fitting that all the faithful should have and put into practice that power of acknowledging God’s majesty that they have received through the saving Passion of the Only-Begotten Son.17

[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.18 This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

[8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”. It is therefore necessary that some things be corrected or more clearly delineated so that in this respect as well “the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery”.19

[9.] Finally, abuses are often based on ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. For “the liturgical prayers, orations and songs are pervaded by the inspiration and impulse” of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, “and it is from these that the actions and signs receive their meaning”.20 As for the visible signs “which the Sacred Liturgy uses in order to signify the invisible divine realities, they have been chosen by Christ or by the Church”.21 Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition,22 which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.

…[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

We pray as we believe. This needs to be expressed in the Mass. I can certainly understand the concerns the OP has, but, many of these would be alleviated if the priests simply do the red and say the black. That is not a momunemental request to make since the Church mandates that this be done.

 

[floresco]

I didn’t tell him any of that of course as I was too disheartened and felt I would alienate him even more than he already felt about it. Why is it that priests just aren’t taking advantage of the Moto Propio? If you asked a priest about having a TLM at your parish, did you ever get a similar response? Seems like the first Latin priest is off my list.

Don’t be discouraged. On another trad forum I read, two different posters have written about about their diocesan priests moving toward tradition. In one case, the priest restored their church’s old altar and the poster expects him to eventually start saying the TLM. Another poster has written to say her diocesan priest is getting trained and preparing for the TLM now. In both cases, the priest seemed inclined toward traditional spirituality to start with and the posters seem to have close, friendly relationships with the priest. So look for a priest who shows signs of being open. Things that might be signs are Eucharistic Adoration, lots of Confession time scheduled, and reverent liturgy. Then try to get to know him a bit and develop a rapport.

I also know of a case where a couple donated money for their parish priest to go to St. John Cantius for a TLM training workshop ( sanctamissa.org/en/index.html ) and to be buy a Missal and other supplies for setting up their parish for the TLM. I suspect that “putting their money where their mouth is” like that made a good impression on the priest. I doubt it would affect a priest who was hostile to tradition, but I can imagine it affecting one who was neutral. Not everyone can afford to do something like that, but gathering a group together to raise the money could work the same way. It might even be better because it would show that a number of people are interested.

So keep praying. Keep hoping. Do not give up.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The pope specifically addressed the world’s bishops in a separate letter indicating that individual priests do NOT need the permission of their bishop to celebrate the TLM. That’s it. Whether you believe it or not is of no consequence to the truth.

Since you can’t be bothered to go to page two and read one post, here’s the explanation again:

To answer the question of the original post one has to look at several pieces.

Summorum Pontificum released the Tridentine or Extraordinary Form so that ANY secular priest who belongs to a diocese can celebrate it. If a priest is a diocesan priest, then he is a secular priest. He does not need the permission of the bishop to celebrate the EF. But he must comply with any requirements that his bishop may have for the celebration. For example, if the bishop says that there must be a certain number of people, the priest must comply with that. That is not part of the Motu Propio… That is a diocesan decision. If he has to bump a regular mass from the schedule, he must check that out with the chancery. Mass schedules are usually under the jurisdiction of the local pastor. But the faithful can complain to the chancery if they are bumped, for the EF, precisely because Pope Benedict left that caveat in when he officially named it “extraordinary”. A principle of law is that whatever is extraordinary cannot replace the ordinary unless there is just cause. If you bump 500 people to put in a mass for 100 people, you have a problem and the bishop may not be too happy about it.

Another valid concern that does arise is the number of masses that a priest may say in one day. Normally, the priest should celebrate only one mass. Given the shortage, many priests celebrate two. Three requires permission of the bishop or the major superior, if the priest is a consecrated religious. If the priest is going to add a mass to the parish schedule, he has to ensure that the celebrant does not go over the allowed number of masses that he can celebrate in one day. He has to give preference to that which is ordinary, in this case the OF.

-snip-

 

[ConstantineTG]

Whether you believe it or not is of no consequence to the truth.

This statement applies to you. You’re going with what you’ve heard from around here than what is the truth. Read SP and understand what is being said. What you claim is not what is being said. Read Canon Law and understand what is the authority of Diocesan Bishops over their Diocese.

 

[Sirach2]

Benedictgal:

I also need to work within the paramters and the remedies given by the Church.

When things like this happen, you don’t take your ball and go to another playground. You stay and work with what has been given to you. As I said before, the wheels of Rome grind slowly, but, they grind finely.

Well said - I agree. The laity have no authority to effect changes, unfortunately, and the only recourse they have is to “take the remedies given by the Church.” That would be submitting a report to the lawful Authority outlining the abuse witnessed, with back up to support it. That does not include the “nits” that some enjoy picking, and which the Bishops have little desire to respond to, but really grave matters.

Sadly, we see the recourse taken too often is to gripe and complain on the internet, where little gets accomplished other than venting and feeling rather proud that some folks support a point of view. That too, does not accomplish anything.

A priest I listened to recently wisely advocated making acts of reparation whenever an abuse is witnessed, and even taking on penances to obtain light and graces for the offender to correct them. I’ll wager this means is rarely taken.

 

[cathdoki]

This statement applies to you. You’re going with what you’ve heard from around here than what is the truth. Read SP and understand what is being said. What you claim is not what is being said. Read Canon Law and understand what is the authority of Diocesan Bishops over their Diocese.

I’m afraid I have to offer you an apology. I jumped to a conclusion.

 

[malphono]

Look for a Chaldean or Maronite Church. Also, they both are celebrated in different Rites, the Maronite using Byzantine while Chaldean uses the Eastern Assyrian/Chaldean Rite.

This is absolutely, 100% false. The Melkites are Byzantine, not the Maronites. The Maronite Church shares the patrimony of the (West) Syriac Church.

 

[kozlosap]

Mormon seminaries are full too. Does that testify to the truth of Mormonism?

Father - I thought that “every” male from age 12 is a priest in the LDS church! However, a big for your post!!!

 

[wisdomseeker]

It sounds like your bishop is in open rebellion against Pope Benedict XVI. That’s very sad.

so the question becomes, who do we obey? the pope or the bishop in disobedience to the pope. i remember one time hearing, i think it was fr. Pacwa saying that we obey only those who are in obedience to the pope.

 

[benedictgal]

Since you can’t be bothered to go to page two and read one post, here’s the explanation again:

But, as much as I respect, JR, that is his interpretation of the document. Furthermore, while the bishop enjoys authority in his diocese, there are limitations. Bishops, too, are bound by obedience ot the Holy See. Furthermore, if the Pope can’t overrule a bishop in his own diocese, as you assert, how, then, do you explain the provisions contained in Redemptionis Sacramentum that pretty much submit the bishop to the Holy Father’s authority when trying to rectify liturgical abuse? Your reasonsing, as I see it, does not compute.

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

Even if a pope couldn’t overrule a bishop in their own diocese, they serve at his discretion and he could have them removed if he wanted

But, as much as I respect, JR, that is his interpretation of the document. Furthermore, while the bishop enjoys authority in his diocese, there are limitations. Bishops, too, are bound by obedience ot the Holy See. Furthermore, if the Pope can’t overrule a bishop in his own diocese, as you assert, how, then, do you explain the provisions contained in Redemptionis Sacramentum that pretty much submit the bishop to the Holy Father’s authority when trying to rectify liturgical abuse? Your reasonsing, as I see it, does not compute.