The SSPX (without a flamewar)

[phil19034]

phil19034:

(unless the bishop gives permission for a priest to celebrate 3 masses)

AFAIK, trination isn’t that uncommon, and bishops aren’t that resistant to it

I was just using it as an example. Point is priests can only do X number of Masses a day. If adding the EF rubs up against that, that’s were problems come in.

 

[Canvas]

Besides, many older Priests havent said an EF Mass in ages and would need to take time to re learn it, which might get difficult if they have many other duties. Many younger ones have never celebrated the EF. I think it is proper that Priests trained in the EF celebrate it. That way there can be EF Mass for those who prefer it, but most Priests can concentrate on the many duties they already have.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I think you mean “can’t” concentrate on the duties they have.

I agree. Priest’s in my area are spread very thin. I don’t know too many who would take on learning the EF now if they haven’t already.

 

[Canvas]

Yes. My bad. Can not concentrate on all their other duties. Thank you for the fix.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Besides, many older Priests havent said an EF Mass in ages and would need to take time to re learn it, which might get difficult if they have many other duties. Many younger ones have never celebrated the EF. I think it is proper that Priests trained in the EF celebrate it. That way there can be EF Mass for those who prefer it, but most Priests can concentrate on the many duties they already have.

Not to mention the alter boy training…which is tough enough when the kids speak the language.

 

[phil19034]

Besides, many older Priests havent said an EF Mass in ages and would need to take time to re learn it, which might get difficult if they have many other duties. Many younger ones have never celebrated the EF. I think it is proper that Priests trained in the EF celebrate it. That way there can be EF Mass for those who prefer it, but most Priests can concentrate on the many duties they already have.

True. Because the Extraordinary Form is a devotion today, the priests & lay people who are devoted to it and/or appreciate it expect it to be flawless, which requires a lot of practice from a lot of people, esp for Solemn High Masses.

 

[Cruciferi]

Exactly.
(10 characters)

 

[commenter]

I think they are not in full communion because they are still wary of what the Church is doing and has done with the Mass and thus are still needed to exist outside the formal structure of the Church for the good of the Church.

Unlike 40 years ago, the great majority of sspx clergy today have never worked much, if at all, as a priest in a diocese or Catholic institution. Younger clergy have likely had few if any seminary teachers or superiors with much experience working in the Church itself. Huge changes in the sspx due to turnover may help explain their current position. Another reason is that organizations tend to take on a momentum of their own.

 

[twf]

It doesn’t matter. It was an Ecumenical Council. There is no higher authority in the Church. We are talking about a solemn Synodal gathering of the entire episcopate… all the successors of the apostles united with the successor of St Peter. To ignore any ecumenical council is the height of pride and foolishness. This is the sin of the SSPX… extreme hubris to think they know better than all the bishops of the world. It’s a quintessentially Protestant attitude.

 

[Canvas]

Actually, Archbishop Lefebvre was French, and it started with him being approached in Rome by conservatve French seminarians. Eventually, Lefebvre started a project in Switzerland with approval of the Bishop of that Diocese. The first SSPX seminary in the US was opened in Michigan in 1973. But relations with rest of the Church became increasingly tense by 1975, and the Vatican attempted to disband the SSPX, who did not comply. Tensions got so bad that Pope Paul VI admonished Lefebvre by name publicly. Later Lefebvre was suspended for outright disobediance. But it wasnt until 1988 that he was fully excommunicated.

 

[KMG]

Actually, it can be done legally. Just as a priest could celebrate the entire OF in Latin one Sunday with no episcopal permission whatsoever.

Now the priest in question may well find himself hauled before the bishop in the morning and threatened with exile to the hinterlands of the diocese…but it can be done.

 

[CilladeRoma]

What can’t be done?
A priest cannot change a regularly scheduled OF Mass and replace it with the EF as he desires.
Yes, he could change the language of the OF, but he cannot change the form.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Any priest has the right to celebrate the TLM any time he wants without the permission of the local ordinary. Summorum Po tificum made that quite clear.

 

[CilladeRoma]

No, they cannot.
Maybe try actually reading it and the accompanying letter by Benedict XVI.

 

[angel12]

Any priest has the right to celebrate the TLM any time he wants without the permission of the local ordinary. Summorum Po tificum made that quite clear.

The letter to the bishops makes it very clear that the local ordinary is still in charge:
“In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).
Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity.”

 

[Augustinian]

Any priest has the right to celebrate the TLM any time he wants without the permission of the local ordinary. Summorum Po tificum made that quite clear.

Regardless of whether that is true or not, if a priest starts changing this kind of thing, he’s still going to have to answer for it. There will be people who report back to the diocese.

 

[commenter]

semper_catholicus:

Any priest has the right to celebrate the TLM any time he wants without the permission of the local ordinary. Summorum Po tificum made that quite clear.

The letter to the bishops makes it very clear that the local ordinary is still in charge:
“In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).
Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity.”

Or, to put it another way, the norms of SP apply specifically to priests currently in union with their bishop-ordinary. It does not apply to others, who are not in that relationship with their ordinary.

 

[KMG]

Yes he can. A priest can certainly use the EF without episcopal permission.

 

[KMG]

The priest may well be transferred by sundown to the worst assignment in the diocese…but he is within his rights to use the 1962 Missal without any episcopal permission, public or not.

 

[Maximilian75]

“This topic was automatically opened 84 days after the last reply”

What…?