Priest uses pre-2011 missal

[HomeschoolDad]

Cecilia_Dympna:

What a horrid suggestion.

I agree.

8675309

I don’t mean this ugly to either one of you, but what is horrid about it?

A priest decides to disobey the bishop and the Pope. It is a public matter that is obvious to anyone who is at Mass, assuming that they are “up enough on things” to realize that there are two missals, one is mandated to be used, the other one is not supposed to be used anymore. Complaining to the bishop is allowed. Making a sub rosa video and showing it to the bishop as proof is not allowed, because that is “horrid”. Is it not a matter of justice to be able to prove what one is alleging, rather than just slinging mud?

I’m sorry, there’s something I’m not seeing here.

But, when someone says that the Missal of Paul VI abrogated the Missal of John XXIII so that should not be used, people lost their minds. So much so, that nearly 50 years after the fact, we decide it wasn’t abrogated.

That is apples and oranges. The 1570 missal was expressly canonized by Pope St Pius V as remaining in force for all time, such that any priest may choose to celebrate Mass according to it, from now until the end of time, and he cannot be prevented from doing this. Nobody “decided it wasn’t abrogated”. The Church, after careful research and deliberation, merely acknowledged Quo primum (in so many words). The 1969 and 2011 missals (and any in between) do not enjoy this sort of protection.

Even if such a priest were suspended from public ministry, he would still remain on the payroll despite being on “gardening leave” - so the next question for the bishop is “what do I do with this guy?”

As I said, the tail wagging the dog. It’s just pretty poor that any priest would show that kind of disrespect and insubordination to his bishop.

 

[DeniseNY]

I don’t mean this ugly to either one of you, but what is horrid about it?

A priest decides to disobey the bishop and the Pope. It is a public matter that is obvious to anyone who is at Mass, assuming that they are “up enough on things” to realize that there are two missals, one is mandated to be used, the other one is not supposed to be used anymore. Complaining to the bishop is allowed. Making a sub rosa video and showing it to the bishop as proof is not allowed, because that is “horrid”. Is it not a matter of justice to be able to prove what one is alleging, rather than just slinging mud?

I’m sorry, there’s something I’m not seeing here.

Our clergy faces enough challenges as it is. And from what I’ve seen on this board, there are people looking for “liturgical abuse” in a haystack. I think the last thing the Church and Her priests need are people videoing them as “evidence”. If someone has a complaint, talk to the pastor. If your still concerned, write to the Bishop. Taking video is just too Chris Hansen for my taste. Our priests don’t need that.

 

[phil19034]

I can foresee that “for many” in the consecration is not going to feel as “warm and fuzzy” as “for all” Things such as that are probably where the entire problem lies.

Yes, their refusal to change is theological.

Just like when a priest REFUSES to accept the 1970 missal, it’s based on theological disagreements.

When a priest REFUSES the Pope, it’s usually theological in nature.

NOTE: I’m not talking about preferences. I’m talking about refusal/disobedience

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Our clergy faces enough challenges as it is. And from what I’ve seen on this board, there are people looking for “liturgical abuse” in a haystack. I think the last thing the Church and Her priests need are people videoing them as “evidence”. If someone has a complaint, talk to the pastor. If your still concerned, write to the Bishop. Taking video is just too Chris Hansen for my taste. Our priests don’t need that.

Well, our bishops, and Rome herself, “don’t need” disobedience from their priests. Calling attention to an abrogated missal being deliberately used in disobedience to the bishop and to Rome is not “looking for liturgical abuse in a haystack”. It’s quite objective, and it’s quite blatant.

I cannot get into the particulars, but in my secular life, I have had to prove enough things, and in one case even had to get an attorney to write a cease-and-desist letter, that I know better than to make allegations I can’t prove, and I know to be able to offer rock-solid, objective, “caught red-handed” evidence. If I had not had a timeline, and time-stamped telephone records to prove my allegations, my C&D letter wouldn’t have been worth the paper it was written on. As it stood, the letter got a screeching halt put to the misbehavior that I was able to document, and the misbehaving parties gave me no further problems.

 

[CilladeRoma]

That is apples and oranges. The 1570 missal was expressly canonized by Pope St Pius V as remaining in force for all time, such that any priest may choose to celebrate Mass according to it, from now until the end of time, and he cannot be prevented from doing this. Nobody “decided it wasn’t abrogated”. The Church, after careful research and deliberation, merely acknowledged Quo primum (in so many words). The 1969 and 2011 missals (and any in between) do not enjoy this sort of protection.

But the EF is not the 1570 Mass.
In fact, that Missal has been changed many times until the 1962 version which we now call the EF.
And, then there is the whole bit about one Pope not being able to bind another in perpetuity.
So, again, what is the big deal?
It seems that the rubrics are relative to what your preference is.

 

[DeniseNY]

I cannot get into the particulars, but in my secular life, I have had to prove enough things, and in one case even had to get an attorney to write a cease-and-desist letter, that I know better than to make allegations I can’t prove, and I know to be able to offer rock-solid, objective, “caught red-handed” evidence. If I had not had a timeline, and time-stamped telephone records to prove my allegations, my C&D letter wouldn’t have been worth the paper it was written on. As it stood, the letter got a screeching halt put to the misbehavior that I was able to document, and the misbehaving parties gave me no further problems.

That’s all great, and i’ve had to do the same thing in my secular life too. I just do not like the idea of taking this same approach with priests and trying to catch them “red handed”. We can agree to disagree, but I find it distasteful.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

That is apples and oranges. The 1570 missal was expressly canonized by Pope St Pius V as remaining in force for all time, such that any priest may choose to celebrate Mass according to it, from now until the end of time, and he cannot be prevented from doing this. Nobody “decided it wasn’t abrogated”. The Church, after careful research and deliberation, merely acknowledged Quo primum (in so many words). The 1969 and 2011 missals (and any in between) do not enjoy this sort of protection.

But the EF is not the 1570 Mass.
In fact, that Missal has been changed many times until the 1962 version which we now call the EF.
And, then there is the whole bit about one Pope not being able to bind another in perpetuity.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I do believe that Quo primum was printed in the front of each and every missal from 1570 all the way down to, and including, 1962. So the Church was certainly under the impression that it was one and the same missal. Mass propers for newly canonized saints were added all the time. As far as adding St Joseph to the Canon, it’s not something I would have done, but it’s not the hill I would die on, so to speak.

And even if the Church does have the authority to abrogate Quo primum, fact is, she did not, and has chosen not to. Personally, if I were the Pope, I’d be kind of afraid to attempt it.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I cannot get into the particulars, but in my secular life, I have had to prove enough things, and in one case even had to get an attorney to write a cease-and-desist letter, that I know better than to make allegations I can’t prove, and I know to be able to offer rock-solid, objective, “caught red-handed” evidence. If I had not had a timeline, and time-stamped telephone records to prove my allegations, my C&D letter wouldn’t have been worth the paper it was written on. As it stood, the letter got a screeching halt put to the misbehavior that I was able to document, and the misbehaving parties gave me no further problems.

That’s all great, and i’ve had to do the same thing in my secular life too. I just do not like the idea of taking this same approach with priests and trying to catch them “red handed”. We can agree to disagree, but I find it distasteful.

I find it distasteful as well — it seems we agree on that part — but sometimes we have to do things we’d rather not have to do. It is not as though I get a kick out of the thought of getting a priest in trouble with his bishop.

On the other hand, my secular adversaries needed to “have a knot jerked in their tail” — they had it coming — and I didn’t feel the least bit bad about doing it. I wouldn’t say I “got a kick out of it”, but I didn’t find it distasteful in any way. Their behavior was borderline illegal.

 

[InThePew]

As I said, the tail wagging the dog. It’s just pretty poor that any priest would show that kind of disrespect and insubordination to his bishop.

It is but sadly there’s a reason why it’s often said that obedience, and not celibacy, is the hardest promise to live! Still, most of the priests who insist upon using the older translation are themselves older and would remember only too well the “dark days” of the past when bishops were basically little different from feudal lords! Suspending a priest is a nuclear option which bishops really don’t want to have to resort to and will try just about anything to avoid. So, put the phone away and don’t worry about informing the bishop of something he already knows about and pray for him instead!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

As I said, the tail wagging the dog. It’s just pretty poor that any priest would show that kind of disrespect and insubordination to his bishop.

It is but sadly there’s a reason why it’s often said that obedience, and not celibacy, is the hardest promise to live! Still, most of the priests who insist upon using the older translation are themselves older and would remember only too well the “dark days” of the past when bishops were basically little different from feudal lords! Suspending a priest is a nuclear option which bishops really don’t want to have to resort to and will try just about anything to avoid. So, put the phone away and don’t worry about informing the bishop of something he already knows about and pray for him instead!

And one thing that occurred to me, and that I didn’t think of until earlier this evening — is it a sin for the priest to use the older OF missal translation? True, the 2011 translation was mandated, it is expected to be used, the expectation was for the older OF missals to be put aside, but precisely what “rule” does it “break”? The Mass said using the older OF missal is certainly valid. So I don’t know. If the bishop attempted to punish the priest, would it be “burning down the chicken coop to fry an egg”? I’m a poor one to ask. I have the mindset of “these are the rules and no further discussion is necessary, everyone get with the program, what you think about it is beside the point”. Others think differently.

 

[Mi_Rose]

My priest retires in May. Then our parish will be combined with another. I really do not care if he says for all or for many. The mass is still valid and I will not nitpick if he slips up sometimes and uses a wrong word here or there. At least we have a valid mass.

 

[InThePew]

And one thing that occurred to me, and that I didn’t think of until earlier this evening — is it a sin for the priest to use the older OF missal translation?

I would say yes for two reasons: first it violates his promise of obedience to his bishop and second because it violates his oath of fidelity to the magisterium.

If the bishop attempted to punish the priest, would it be “burning down the chicken coop to fry an egg”?

More like burning down the coop to get rid of the fox, but yes.

I’m a poor one to ask. I have the mindset of “these are the rules and no further discussion is necessary, everyone get with the program, what you think about it is beside the point”.

For what it’s worth, so do I. I expect that (in most cases) there’ll be discussion and dialogue but, at the end of the day, somebody has to make a decision and that decision should be obeyed otherwise it all just results in anarchy (otherwise known as do what you feel like). After all, this is what happens in pretty much every other workplace; granted priests enjoy far greater job security than most employees but with privilege comes responsibility.