P
plefe
Guest
This is correct.
- Status
P
plefe
Guest
I had this response from half the priests in our Diocese. I happened to live in the Diocese where the Bishop presides, he too has brushed this aside. Permission is no longer needed for any Priest to conduct TLM however, the the Pope having proclaimed the Moto Propio does not mandate TLM be said, it only allows the Bishops to allow TLM to be said without any special requests or permissions to do so. The Pope has left this up to the discretion of the Bishops and the priests. I would never question the Pope, but would rather it were mandated.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Some are overlooking, or refuse to accept that there are requirements involved before a priest can “at his own will” celebrate a TLM.
Those with objections that come late to the thread are asked to review the previous comments before grinding the axe without sufficient knowledge of what you are contending by taking a paragraph out of context to the whole document.
- If he decides to do so, there must be a sufficient number of people who will attend, not just a handful. He cannot override the obligation to celebrate first the Ordinary Form for his parishioners, as mandated by S.P. This cannot be set aside by any personal spur of the moment decison to have a TLM.
- Second, these liturgies must be scheduled and posted in the bulletin in advance. If Father wakes up some morning and decides in preference to what has been previously scheduled, that he is going to do a TLM that day, it is not permitted.
- JR mentioned the fact that only one mass can be celebrated per day, but three on a weekend may be celebrated with permission of the Bishop to satisfy the needs of his parish, and also the needs of partner parishes to which many of our priests serve double duty.
Those with objections that come late to the thread are asked to review the previous comments before grinding the axe without sufficient knowledge of what you are contending by taking a paragraph out of context to the whole document.
O
Ockham
Guest
What heresy is found in an SSPX Mass?
P
ProVobis
Guest
My understanding of the 2007 SP is that it allows the priest to say the TLM if he so chooses without reprimand by his local bishop. But how can he with all these preexisting restrictions? Any ideas as to how a priest can introduce an EF into his church, presuming he wants to and is qualified, when he’s saying 3 Masses already and has full attendance at each Mass?
O
Ockham
Guest
In the Church it shows the contrast between the traditional appeal and the new order.
O
Ockham
Guest
All the SSPX ever did was ordained four bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre did things by the book with the applications. I still haven’t found out why the Vatican ignored the applications. When AB Lefebvre became concerned he’d die before the replacements were ordained he went ahead and did it anyway. He was serving the greater good. Clergy who teach against the Church or think the liturgy is their personal toy get the grief of traditional Catholics. I’m very grateful for the SSPX because without it we might have lost the Mass.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
M
malphono
Guest
The haters here (and I’ve been around this forum long enough to know that they are legion), will cite canon law, “statistics,” and whatever, in order to defend restrictions on the EF.
Let’s face it: a priest assigned to an “inventive” parish would not be likely to have any interest in the EF in the first place. The very thought of even something as innocuous as ad orientem celebration in the OF would give those people apoplexy, so the EF would likely be fatal. (I actually know a parish like that. As it happens, it’s staffed by religious of an order that properly has their own Rite, and I haven’t darkened the door since they warmly and exuberantly embraced the Novus Ordo and the “spirit of Vatican II” and all that goes with it, but I digress.) Not much to worry about there. Little interest. No EF.
OTOH, a priest who may want to offer the EF is one who is normally in a “non-inventive” parish. In such a situation, he could solicit support for the EF, and thus could offer it publicly on Sunday. Perhaps not weekly (at first), but at least on a rotating basis. In doing so, he is accommodating all parties, and is well within any canonical bounds. He might also have access to the assistance of a retired priest or a priest not assigned to a parish (a teacher, perhaps), who is willing to help-out on an ad-hoc basis. And of course if there is sufficient support in the parish for the EF on its own, he can include it in the normal schedule with no repercussions.
I’ve said in other threads that those who don’t like the EF are often those who have (a) never been exposed to it or (b) have not been properly instructed. They don’t like it because they either don’t know what it is or (worse) fear it. It often happens that the “fear” comes from ignorance or from what they have been taught by those with a particular “agenda” (read: the dreaded “spirit of Vatican II”) who hate the EF.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Here’s a website that gives a picture of the situation in the Church today with respect to the priest shortages.
On the chart, you’ll see these statistics:
1950 … 726 priests … 824 parishioners per priest … 412 parishes
2004 … 442 priests …1456 parishioners per priest … 215 parishes
The number of priests was nearly cut in half, as were the number of parishes, yet the amount of parishioners to serve increased dramatically. And this was six years ago, so I presume the figures substantially show less priests and parishes. OTOH, there was a double increase in the number of permanent deacons, from 25 in 1950 to 49 in 2004. Realize, of course, that these cannot say mass, so their role in assisting in a parish is limited.
On the chart, you’ll see these statistics:
1950 … 726 priests … 824 parishioners per priest … 412 parishes
2004 … 442 priests …1456 parishioners per priest … 215 parishes
The number of priests was nearly cut in half, as were the number of parishes, yet the amount of parishioners to serve increased dramatically. And this was six years ago, so I presume the figures substantially show less priests and parishes. OTOH, there was a double increase in the number of permanent deacons, from 25 in 1950 to 49 in 2004. Realize, of course, that these cannot say mass, so their role in assisting in a parish is limited.
O
Ockham
Guest
From Father Zuhldorf’s blog. His comments are in brackets …]
*"The second response clarifies that a Mass in the usus antiquior (extraordinary form) “may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the ordinary form.” The question contextualizes that in many churches Sunday Masses are more or less scheduled continually, leaving free only very inconvenient mid-afternoon slots, but this is merely context, the question posed being general. The answer leaves the matter “to the prudent judgment of the parish priest,” and emphasizes “the right of a stable group to assist at Mass in the extraordinary form.” [However, the flip side is that the Novus Ordo must also be offered, for those who desire to attend it.]
In the third response, it states that a parish priest “may schedule a public Mass in the extraordinary form on his own accord (i.e. without the request of a group of faithful) for the benefit of the faithful including those unfamiliar with the usus antiquior.” The response of the commission here is identical to No. 2. [But this is a huge deal.]"*
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/ncreg-normalizing-the-extraordinary-form/
*"The second response clarifies that a Mass in the usus antiquior (extraordinary form) “may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the ordinary form.” The question contextualizes that in many churches Sunday Masses are more or less scheduled continually, leaving free only very inconvenient mid-afternoon slots, but this is merely context, the question posed being general. The answer leaves the matter “to the prudent judgment of the parish priest,” and emphasizes “the right of a stable group to assist at Mass in the extraordinary form.” [However, the flip side is that the Novus Ordo must also be offered, for those who desire to attend it.]
In the third response, it states that a parish priest “may schedule a public Mass in the extraordinary form on his own accord (i.e. without the request of a group of faithful) for the benefit of the faithful including those unfamiliar with the usus antiquior.” The response of the commission here is identical to No. 2. [But this is a huge deal.]"*
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/ncreg-normalizing-the-extraordinary-form/
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
S
Sirach2
Guest
The real question is, what constitutes a “stable group?” When S.P. first came out, there were a lot of questions debated here about how many made up a stable group. Only the Bishop together with the parish priest can determine this figure, depending on each individual parish’s needs.
In my parish, one traditionalist approached my pastor asking to have a TLM. He reminded her of this stipulation and asked her to let him know how many are interested. She couldn’t come up with any other people who wanted it, so it was never scheduled. However, this request was before my pastor had to service a partner parish a few years later in addition to our own. As for now, it is impossible. This will probably disappoint those here who think a small number justifies supplanting a regular OF liturgy.
C
Corki
Guest
That’s the whole issue. The motu propio did not seem to forsee that when large groups of parishioners requested an EF that they would be simply told “no” because the Bishop said so. How exactly does this account for the needs of the groups of parishioners?
BTW, “stable group” was a mistranslation that was cleared up shortly after SP was released.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Read my earlier posts which has a lengthier explanation. You know its tiring to post the same thing over and over again in the same thread just because people elect to come in, disregard all other posts, and post in a comment that has already been addressed just 2 pages ago.
If there are liturgical abuses, then of course the Bishop is subject to a higher authority. But that doesn’t mean the Pope will micromanage the Bishop. Again, as I have said, the Pope cannot supersede a Bishop in authority that is rightfully the Bishops’. This is for ordinary cases like deciding which Mass, when, where, etc.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Do you have a source, Corki? Are saying the Pope issued a retraction or clarification to SP?
How many are in your “large groups?” I’ve yet to see this, so it depends on your definition of “large.”
How many are in your “large groups?” I’ve yet to see this, so it depends on your definition of “large.”
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
First, you just made my point. I doubt you’ll ever say the same thing when any other regular bishop who ordains other bishops. The fact that Abp. Lefebvre disregarded the Canonical Law that required a Papal approval of all new bishops puts into question his respect and faith in the hierarchy of the Church.
I thought that Catholics do not believe in “the end justifies the means”? We never apply that reasoning in any moral judgement we make, so why would it apply to the SSPX? Disobedience is disobedience, whether its ordaining bishops or introducing litrugical dance into the Mass.
A
Adeodatus
Guest
Right. This is from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. If I am the pastor of a diocesan parish, I can choose to replace the Sunday noon Mass with the TLM (or any other, as long as I leave some access to the OF). The bishop need not be consulted in this matter.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Actually, articles 7 and 8 of the Motu Proprio do foresee this precise circumstance.
I think it was actually due to a variation in the text that was initially released versus the text that appeared in Acta Apostolicae Sedis. You’re correct that the final version of the Latin said continenter rather than stabiliter, though personally I don’t remotely ascribe the same significance to this variation that some have claimed. I find it almost impossible to imagine what it would take for a group of TLM adherents to be “continuously present” even though they are not “stably present.”
M
malphono
Guest
Explain, then, how it’s possible that at least a few bishops have been called to task by Rome for having obstructed the EF in their dioceses.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Source?
- Status