Youth and the Extraordinary Form

  • Thread starter Thread starter 10thCrusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mrs_Sally said:
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the bishop who ask them to say the OF exclusively or even most of the time. Because you are right to say that would negate the reason for inviting in the FSSP to begin with.

What I understand Tim to be saying is that FSSP priests should be trained to say both Masses and should graciously agree to say the OF when necessary, for example at the Chrism Mass or another special Mass offered by the diocese. Another example that I can think of might be a funeral Mass, or perhaps an instance when a priest needs a replacement an Ordinary Form Mass was already scheduled.

I don’t think there would be many or frequent instances, but simply that a priest who is under the authority of the local Ordinary should do what is requested of him by the Ordinary.
Click to expand...
While it might be within the letter of the law for a bishop to make such a request it is a violation of the spirit. The FSSP was founded when the SSPX broke with Rome. This created a situation in which there were priests with serious concerns about the OF who nevertheless wanted to be fully in communion with the Pope. The papal approval of the FSSP, in effect, was a statement that the concerns of these priests would be respected. For a bishop to ask them to say the OF would come across as going back on this agreement. It would create a sense of injustice and betrayal. It would be highly imprudent for a bishop to make such a request unless it were truly necessary.

And I cannot imagine a case in which it would be truly necessary for the Mass to be said in the OF instead of the EF. The EF is a valid Catholic Mass. Whenever a Mass is necessary, the EF meets that necessity. There may be situations in which the EF is desirable or expedient, but I have been thinking about this and I really cannot come up with one in which it is necessary.
 
Why should FSSP priests be trained in the OF Mass when seminaries training priests for the OF Mass do not automatically train them for the EF Mass? In addition, a great many churches have been so modified fo the OF Mass that they can no longer properly support an EF Mass so there is not so great a demand for such requests.
 
The FSSP are trained and formed to offer the EF in a diocese where the Bishop has invited them to do so, for the benefit of those who are attached to the older form of the liturgy. The FSSP fill a niche. They are not invited into a diocese to serve as back-up priests for the celebration of the OF. I don’t know why anyone would want to force something which the Church herself, as well as the Bishops, have no interest in forcing.
 
Bob_Aliano said:
Why should FSSP priests be trained in the OF Mass when seminaries training priests for the OF Mass do not automatically train them for the EF Mass? In addition, a great many churches have been so modified fo the OF Mass that they can no longer properly support an EF Mass so there is not so great a demand for such requests.
Click to expand...
Because the OF is Ordinary. People need to know and be trained in what is lawfully Ordinary.

Again, if the Forms would be reversed, it’s be the same thing; new-OF would have to be trained, even if constitutions said they specialize in new-EF.
 
floresco said:
While it might be within the letter of the law for a bishop to make such a request it is a violation of the spirit…It would create a sense of injustice and betrayal. It would be highly imprudent for a bishop to make such a request unless it were truly necessary.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight.
You would not want a Bishop or religious authority to “violate the spirit” by making a simple request for a Mass that the Church endorses and the FSSP recognizes as well.
What insight do you have, that the Bishop does not, to make such a conclusion?
Injustice and betrayal… Those are pretty strong words to throw around.
Especially when it concerns clergy.
We might not agree with clergy, but we are to respect them.
And show that respect at all times in any public venue.
Not to respect religious, to me, is far more imprudent.

Maybe JrEducation can chime in and give us his opinion.
 
JustaServant said:
So let me get this straight.
You would not want a Bishop or religious authority to “violate the spirit” by making a simple request for a Mass that the Church endorses and the FSSP recognizes as well.
What insight do you have, that the Bishop does not, to make such a conclusion?
Injustice and betrayal… Those are pretty strong words to throw around.
Especially when it concerns clergy.
We might not agree with clergy, but we are to respect them.
And show that respect at all times in any public venue.
Not to respect religious, to me, is far more imprudent.

Maybe JrEducation can chime in and give us his opinion.
You do respect his opinion, right?
Click to expand...
My point was that asking an FSSP priest to say the OF is not a simple request. There is a history there that complicates things.

I am puzzled as to how you could have found any disrespect to clergy in my words. I am a Franciscan; respect for clergy is part of our charism.

If you would like to check my posting history, you can see that I have always addressed Br. JR respectfully.
 
This is seriously nothing to get worked over whatsoever, and I don’t understand what the hoopla is, or how we got to this conversation.
  1. No group can outlaw what is Ordinary.
  2. Yes, the FSSP has they celebrate the EF in their constitutions, however said constitutions cannot trump #1.
  3. The FSSP is a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right, and have all the rights that such groups have in accordance with that section of Canon Law. This includes having a large degree of autonomy if they own the parish they run.
A) If the DIOCESE owns the parish, the Bishop can technically decide which Form of Mass has to happen in that parish. At that moment, the FSSP priest would probably need to comply.

B) If the SOCIETY owns the parish, the Society trumps all as per their Pontifical Right.

C) At any point, the FSSP would be immune from any discipline from the Bishop. Again, Pontifical Right.
  1. No Bishop would force the FSSP to say the OF unless it was an emergency. The FSSP would probably leave the diocese and not suffer any ill-effects if this happened often. But again, it probably wouldn’t happen.
Bishops have enough issues. One of the benefits of Societies of Apostolic Life is a Bishop can assign them a parish and then go hands off; they govern themselves. Why micromanage that?

As an aside, Societies of Apostolic Life are an “invention” of Vatican II. In this case, this post-V2 invention is a tremendous asset to traditionalists.
 
floresco said:
My point was that asking an FSSP priest to say the OF is not a simple request. There is a history there that complicates things.

I am puzzled as to how you could have found any disrespect to clergy in my words. I am a Franciscan; respect for clergy is part of our charism.

If you would like to check my posting history, you can see that I have always addressed Br. JR respectfully.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt you do. 😉
I just get concerned when I hear traditionalists putting thier decisions and opinions above those who are to be our shepherds. I think doing that complicates things. “Betrayal and injustice” are very strong words to throw around.
Thats all I’m saying.
 
Melchior said:
This is seriously nothing to get worked over whatsoever, and I don’t understand what the hoopla is, or how we got to this conversation.
  1. No group can outlaw what is Ordinary.
  2. Yes, the FSSP has they celebrate the EF in their constitutions, however said constitutions cannot trump #1.
  3. The FSSP is a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right, and have all the rights that such groups have in accordance with that section of Canon Law. This includes having a large degree of autonomy if they own the parish they run.
A) If the DIOCESE owns the parish, the Bishop can technically decide which Form of Mass has to happen in that parish. At that moment, the FSSP priest would probably need to comply.

B) If the SOCIETY owns the parish, the Society trumps all as per their Pontifical Right.

C) At any point, the FSSP would be immune from any discipline from the Bishop. Again, Pontifical Right.
  1. No Bishop would force the FSSP to say the OF unless it was an emergency. The FSSP would probably leave the diocese and not suffer any ill-effects if this happened often. But again, it probably wouldn’t happen.
Bishops have enough issues. One of the benefits of Societies of Apostolic Life is a Bishop can assign them a parish and then go hands off; they govern themselves. Why micromanage that?

As an aside, Societies of Apostolic Life are an “invention” of Vatican II. In this case, this post-V2 invention is a tremendous asset to traditionalists.
Click to expand...
👍
 
JustaServant said:
I just get concerned when I hear traditionalists putting thier decisions and opinions above those who are to be our shepherds. I think doing that complicates things. “Betrayal and injustice” are very strong words to throw around.
Thats all I’m saying.
Click to expand...
I am loyal and obedient to the Magisterium. While I consider myself a traditional Catholic, I acknowledge that I have no right to put my decisions and opinions over the authority of the Church.

All I was saying was that, given the history, I would expect FSSP priests to have a sense of betrayal and injustice if ordered to say the OF. Yes, those are strong words. I expect that they would have strong feelings. I also expect that bishops would know this and not put FSSP priests in such a position.
 
Melchior said:
This is seriously nothing to get worked over whatsoever, and I don’t understand what the hoopla is, or how we got to this conversation.
  1. No group can outlaw what is Ordinary.
  2. Yes, the FSSP has they celebrate the EF in their constitutions, however said constitutions cannot trump #1.
  3. The FSSP is a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right, and have all the rights that such groups have in accordance with that section of Canon Law. This includes having a large degree of autonomy if they own the parish they run.
A) If the DIOCESE owns the parish, the Bishop can technically decide which Form of Mass has to happen in that parish. At that moment, the FSSP priest would probably need to comply.

B) If the SOCIETY owns the parish, the Society trumps all as per their Pontifical Right.

C) At any point, the FSSP would be immune from any discipline from the Bishop. Again, Pontifical Right.
  1. No Bishop would force the FSSP to say the OF unless it was an emergency. The FSSP would probably leave the diocese and not suffer any ill-effects if this happened often. But again, it probably wouldn’t happen.
Bishops have enough issues. One of the benefits of Societies of Apostolic Life is a Bishop can assign them a parish and then go hands off; they govern themselves. Why micromanage that?

As an aside, Societies of Apostolic Life are an “invention” of Vatican II. In this case, this post-V2 invention is a tremendous asset to traditionalists.
Click to expand...
👍

I’m surprised this thread hasn’t been locked. It is going nowhere.
 
floresco said:
I am loyal and obedient to the Magisterium. While I consider myself a traditional Catholic, I acknowledge that I have no right to put my decisions and opinions over the authority of the Church.
Click to expand...
Those are wise words to remember Floresco.
I’m glad to hear it. And I’m sure you would respect clergy and would never show any disrespect for them in person, or on the internet. 👍
Lord Bless.
 
Lormar said:
👍

I’m surprised this thread hasn’t been locked. It is going nowhere.
Click to expand...
A lot better than it used to be.
I haven’t been over here to the TC forum for a while. It’s changed a lot since the old days. Tom’s done a great job of getting it into shape.
Women and children can walk the streets of the TC forum after sundown now.
😃
 
JustaServant said:
A lot better than it used to be.
I haven’t been over here to the TC forum for a while. It’s changed a lot since the old days. Tom’s done a great job of getting it into shape.
Women and children can walk the streets of the TC forum after sundown now.
😃
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly with you. It has changed a lot since I first joined and we all have Thomas Casey to thank. He is fair and square! He keeps me on my toes too.
 
Lormar said:
I agree wholeheartedly with you. It has changed a lot since I first joined and we all have Thomas Casey to thank. He is fair and square! He keeps me on my toes too.
Click to expand...
I think most of the bad ones went over to Fisheaters.
 
Melchior said:
This is seriously nothing to get worked over whatsoever, and I don’t understand what the hoopla is, or how we got to this conversation.
  1. No group can outlaw what is Ordinary.
  2. Yes, the FSSP has they celebrate the EF in their constitutions, however said constitutions cannot trump #1.
  3. The FSSP is a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right, and have all the rights that such groups have in accordance with that section of Canon Law. This includes having a large degree of autonomy if they own the parish they run.
A) If the DIOCESE owns the parish, the Bishop can technically decide which Form of Mass has to happen in that parish. At that moment, the FSSP priest would probably need to comply.

B) If the SOCIETY owns the parish, the Society trumps all as per their Pontifical Right.

C) At any point, the FSSP would be immune from any discipline from the Bishop. Again, Pontifical Right.
  1. No Bishop would force the FSSP to say the OF unless it was an emergency. The FSSP would probably leave the diocese and not suffer any ill-effects if this happened often. But again, it probably wouldn’t happen.
Bishops have enough issues. One of the benefits of Societies of Apostolic Life is a Bishop can assign them a parish and then go hands off; they govern themselves. Why micromanage that?

As an aside, Societies of Apostolic Life are an “invention” of Vatican II. In this case, this post-V2 invention is a tremendous asset to traditionalists.
Click to expand...
To whom does the OHCAC grant the authority to interpret and implement canon law in these matters?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top