Priestly Vows of Obedience

[glgas]

When a person receives Holy Orders and becomes a Priest, they make certain vows, especially a vow of obedience? Who are they vowing to obey? My understanding is that they are promising to obey their Bishop (if they are Diocesan) or their Superior (if they are religious). Therefore, as it relates to the Traditional issues, aren't Priests still required to obey their Bishop (and the Church in general)? For example, the Church has deemed the NO Mass valid and the Ordinary Form, therefore aren't Latin Rite Priests required to celebrate it if there Bishop so desires it?

It seems like if you are a Priest, then you are required to obey your superiors (either Diocesan or religious) and you are always required to adhere to Canon Law, correct?

Diocesan priest only took the Antimodernist oath before ordination, and the oath to keep celibacy before subdiaconate. The first was abolished in the middle of sixties, the second is still  requirement. No further vows were required. Oath or vow  to obey the bishop was never requirement, only the obedience itself. Each priest was incardinated to a diocese and under the jurisdiction of the ordinary, The suspension and excommunication were the tools to enforce obedience, traditional faithful priests were eager to resolve that.

[jovan66102]

Oath, vow, promise? They solemnly promised obedience:

Then each of the ordained comes again before the bishop, kneels and places his folded hands between the hands of the bishop. If the bishop is the Ordinary of the ordained he says to him:

Do you promise me and my successors reverence and obedience?

The priest replies: I promise.

[nsper7]

Oath, vow, promise? They solemnly promised obedience:

Then each of the ordained comes again before the bishop, kneels and places his folded hands between the hands of the bishop. If the bishop is the Ordinary of the ordained he says to him:

Do you promise me and my successors reverence and obedience?

The priest replies: I promise.

Okay, so then a Priest has to obey his superiors. So what happens to a "Traditional" Priest who serves in a Diocese overseen by a "Modernist" Bishop?

[Historian]

Okay, so then a Priest has to obey his superiors. So what happens to a "Traditional" Priest who serves in a Diocese overseen by a "Modernist" Bishop?

Which bishop are you accusing of heresy?

[nsper7]

Okay, so then a Priest has to obey his superiors. So what happens to a "Traditional" Priest who serves in a Diocese overseen by a "Modernist" Bishop?

Which bishop are you accusing of heresy?

None, just bringing up a question that seems germane to issues of Traditionalism.

[Historian]

Okay, so then a Priest has to obey his superiors. So what happens to a "Traditional" Priest who serves in a Diocese overseen by a "Modernist" Bishop?

Which bishop are you accusing of heresy?

None, just bringing up a question that seems germane to issues of Traditionalism.

traditionalism.

Are you flame baiting?

[nsper7]

Okay, so then a Priest has to obey his superiors. So what happens to a "Traditional" Priest who serves in a Diocese overseen by a "Modernist" Bishop?

Which bishop are you accusing of heresy?

None, just bringing up a question that seems germane to issues of Traditionalism.

traditionalism.

Are you flame baiting?

Why is that anytime someone asks a question regarding the issues regarding the fine line between Traditional claims of 'true obedience' and the rejoinder that it may in fact be just 'disobedience' they are accuse of flame baiting? I think these are legitimate questions. Even Fr. Cekada's article on the promulgation of the New Mass touched on it: if you say you recognize the current Pope has valid, how can you be disobedient?

[Historian]

Why is that anytime someone asks a question regarding the issues regarding the fine line between Traditional claims of 'true obedience' and the rejoinder that it may in fact be just 'disobedience' they are accuse of flame baiting?

Anytime? Someone? How about "most of the time" and "you"?

The people whose job it is to deal with this issues are not us.

It is clear that you are not one to attend irregular parishes. So, why even get into it? Can you not be more productive instead of bring up this narrow topic all the time?

Er, the last time you went diverse, it was even worse, so I'm not sure those were good questions.

[goggleeyes]

The traditional priestly fraternities (ICRSS and FSSP are the main ones in the USA) operate in a diocese with the permission of the bishop.  It is not inconceivable to think that arrangement includes an understanding that the fraternity priests would not be expected to offer the NO.

Our priest (FSSP) told my fiance and I the other day that he's not ever required by the bishop to say the NO Mass.  That's part of the "deal" apparently.

[nsper7]

The traditional priestly fraternities (ICRSS and FSSP are the main ones in the USA) operate in a diocese with the permission of the bishop.  It is not inconceivable to think that arrangement includes an understanding that the fraternity priests would not be expected to offer the NO.

Our priest (FSSP) told my fiance and I the other day that he's not ever required by the bishop to say the NO Mass.  That's part of the "deal" apparently.

The charism of groups like the FSSP, ICKSP, Canons-Regular of St. John Cantius, etc. is to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Mass, so I would assume any Bishop who consents to them working in his Diocese knows that that is part of the setup. One would hope that any Bishop, even if they are personally opposed or dislike the TLM or whatever, would recognize the importance of serving his flocks that prefer the TLM and, in this time of Priest shortages, would want more Priests (whether they are Diocesan, religious or TLM-only or whatever) in the area to serve.