FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Trad communities question - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Questions about Traditional Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Thread: Trad communities question (/showthread.php?tid=56914)



Trad communities question - richness of tradition - 08-02-2012


Someone mentioned on Rorate that priests of the trad. communities approved by Rome (fssp, etc) are required to offer one NO Mass a year.
Is that really so?


Re: Trad communities question - James02 - 08-02-2012

At worst they are required to attend the Chrism Mass, but don't concelebrate.  I think even that is no longer required.


Re: Trad communities question - MichaelNZ - 08-02-2012

I have heard that, but I don't know if it's true. I would say that at the very least they are required to recognise that the NO is valid and licit, i.e. that there's nothing wrong with it.


Re: Trad communities question - LoyalVIews - 08-03-2012

I thought only attendance was required, not actually offering the Mass.


Re: Trad communities question - joe17 - 08-03-2012

Actual attendance may vary.  I recall several years back being at a trad catechism and one of the attendents said that the FSSP priests all had to say the New Mass.  A soon to be Fraternity seminarian said "no they don't". (By the way, I would not speak in such a loose way.  Only speak facts, not heresay.  It can come back to bite you) 
  However, even though they are not required to say the NO, they do have to not only verbally but put their name to the dotted line that the NO is a valid, Catholic rite of Mass and that Vatican II was a true ecumenical Council and that the 83 Code of Canon law is to be followed.  I say this because I knew a former Society priest who was seriously considering joining up with them and was able to go through the paperwork that he would have to sign and agree with if he did.  It clearly had these things and others that he was diametrically opposed to because he had been taught in seminary from the old books that they are wrong. 
  This was back in the 90's, before Protocol 1411 of 1999 came out.
Hope this adds a little bit to the topic.