Priestly Vows of Obedience
#21
(11-04-2009, 05:30 PM)nsper7 Wrote: 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.

Don't make assumptions.

Do you think a bishop could give an order for the NO to be celebrated by those groups and that they should obey it?
Reply
#22
(11-04-2009, 05:33 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(11-04-2009, 05:30 PM)nsper7 Wrote: 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.

Don't make assumptions.

Do you think a bishop could give an order for the NO to be celebrated by those groups and that they should obey it?


Rosarium's right.  You know what happens when you assume.  ;)  I've even seen it posted on FE more than a few times that FSSP priests might be required to show their loyalty and deference, or whatever you want to call it, by offering a certain number of NO masses a year.  I don't think those who posted it were 'in the know' about any such requirements, but were rather assuming that any group that has an agreement with the diocese must be selling out tradition to have reached it. Again with the assuming....
Reply
#23
(11-04-2009, 05:33 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(11-04-2009, 05:30 PM)nsper7 Wrote: 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.

Don't make assumptions.

Do you think a bishop could give an order for the NO to be celebrated by those groups and that they should obey it?

1) Do I think could give an order for the NO to be celebrated by these groups?

I would assume it would depend on the agreement between the Bishop and the group (i.e. FSSP, ICKSP, etc.). After all, if the Bishop made a formal agreement that the FSSP Priest or whatever would only be required to celebrate the TLM/EF (perhaps with a clause thrown in about extreme circumstances such as every NO/OF celebrant getting sick and there needing to be a Priest to celebrate the NO/OF), then wouldn't the Bishop have to abide by said agreement or face a complaint to the Vatican for being dishonest and breaking an agreement? On the other hand, if it is sort of just an 'informal understanding', then yes the Bishop would be within his rights to require an FSSP, etc. Priest to celebrate an NO Mass.

2) Should they obey it?

Yes, although if there were dishonesty on the part of the Bishop or a violation of a formal agreement, I would assume there would be grounds to lodge a complaint with the Vatican.
Reply
#24
(11-04-2009, 05:44 PM)nsper7 Wrote: 1) Do I think could give an order for the NO to be celebrated by these groups?

I would assume it would depend on the agreement between the Bishop and the group (i.e. FSSP, ICKSP, etc.). After all, if the Bishop made a formal agreement that the FSSP Priest or whatever would only be required to celebrate the TLM/EF (perhaps with a clause thrown in about extreme circumstances such as every NO/OF celebrant getting sick and there needing to be a Priest to celebrate the NO/OF), then wouldn't the Bishop have to abide by said agreement or face a complaint to the Vatican for being dishonest and breaking an agreement? On the other hand, if it is sort of just an 'informal understanding', then yes the Bishop would be within his rights to require an FSSP, etc. Priest to celebrate an NO Mass.
I said to not make assumptions and your first words in your answer were "I would assume".

It is ok to say "I don't know".

The issue here isn't what the agreement was. A bishop could change, and they do. The Bishop can do as he pleases, but would the priest be required to obey?

Quote:2) Should they obey it?

Yes, although if there were dishonesty on the part of the Bishop or a violation of a formal agreement, I would assume there would be grounds to lodge a complaint with the Vatican.
Ah, this is where the problem is. You say they would be bound to obey a command that is questionable. I would say that they are no under obligation to deny their vows for human, even if he is a bishop.
Reply
#25
(11-04-2009, 05:52 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(11-04-2009, 05:44 PM)nsper7 Wrote: 1) Do I think could give an order for the NO to be celebrated by these groups?

I would assume it would depend on the agreement between the Bishop and the group (i.e. FSSP, ICKSP, etc.). After all, if the Bishop made a formal agreement that the FSSP Priest or whatever would only be required to celebrate the TLM/EF (perhaps with a clause thrown in about extreme circumstances such as every NO/OF celebrant getting sick and there needing to be a Priest to celebrate the NO/OF), then wouldn't the Bishop have to abide by said agreement or face a complaint to the Vatican for being dishonest and breaking an agreement? On the other hand, if it is sort of just an 'informal understanding', then yes the Bishop would be within his rights to require an FSSP, etc. Priest to celebrate an NO Mass.
I said to not make assumptions and your first words in your answer were "I would assume".

It is ok to say "I don't know".

The issue here isn't what the agreement was. A bishop could change, and they do. The Bishop can do as he pleases, but would the priest be required to obey?

Quote:2) Should they obey it?

Yes, although if there were dishonesty on the part of the Bishop or a violation of a formal agreement, I would assume there would be grounds to lodge a complaint with the Vatican.
Ah, this is where the problem is. You say they would be bound to obey a command that is questionable. I would say that they are no under obligation to deny their vows for human, even if he is a bishop.

Even if the Bishop goes back on his word, which is sinful (lying) especially if made the agreement with the express intention of breaking it later, the command that a Priest celebrate the Ordinary Form is not an unlawful one. Personally, if I were a Bishop, I would welcome the FSSP and other TLM-only groups into my Diocese and be willing to formally agree that they would only have to celebrate TLM (with an 'extreme situation' clause in the agreement that if there became a desperate and immediate shortage of NO/OF Priests due to a grave situation, such as sickness or some kind of disaster, I could ask them to temporarily celebrate the Masses at a vacated NO/OF parish). I would extend the same offer to Anglican Use Priests and  Eastern Rite Priests (although I know the latter have their Eparchies) and other religious orders. In this age of Priest shortages, never look a gift Priest in the mouth. :)
Reply
#26
(11-04-2009, 06:00 PM)nsper7 Wrote: Even if the Bishop goes back on his word, which is sinful (lying) especially if made the agreement with the express intention of breaking it later, the command that a Priest celebrate the Ordinary Form is not an unlawful one. Personally, if I were a Bishop, I would welcome the FSSP and other TLM-only groups into my Diocese and be willing to formally agree that they would only have to celebrate TLM (with an 'extreme situation' clause in the agreement that if there became a desperate and immediate shortage of NO/OF Priests due to a grave situation, such as sickness or some kind of disaster, I could ask them to temporarily celebrate the Masses at a vacated NO/OF parish).
By a bishop changing I meant that there was a new bishop, not that the person changed an opinion.

As for what you said, that is certainly flame baiting. They could certainly celebrate mass where ever it is needed, but it should be in the rite they perform. If a bishop needed to call upon an FSSP priest in an emergency, that priest could not be expected to do anything other than observe the traditions of the Church and use the proper rites. To ask him to do otherwise would be something he should defy I think.

Would you, in your hypothetical situation, require NO priests to celebrate the TLM for FSSP parishes?

Quote: I would extend the same offer to Anglican Use Priests and  Eastern Rite Priests (although I know the latter have their Eparchies) and other religious orders. In this age of Priest shortages, never look a gift Priest in the mouth. :)
Eastern Rite priests CANNOT celebrate the Latin rite. Latin Rite priests cannot celebrate Eastern Rites. That would be violating the rules of the Church.

You never explicitly stated requiring them to use other rites or forms, but since that is the context of this discussion, I have answered with that in mind. If you did not mean it that way, then your statement is meaningless...priests can and should perform mass and administer the sacraments. That is what they do.
Reply
#27
Obedience has its limits, especially if His Excellency, Bishop Hypothetical is a modernist (FYI: modernism is a condemned heresy with a very specific definition).

If a bishop were to require his priests to wear party hats and talk in pig latin, it would be outside the bounds of obedience.  Priests have rights: one of which is the right to offer the TLM.  A bishop cannot mandate that a priest stop offering the old Mass.  At least not since SP.

If your question is about a diocesan priest who exclusively offers the TLM, but his ordinary (His Excellency, Bishop Hypothetical) demands that he also offer the NO, then the question was answered by thousands of priests in the 60's and 70's whose bishops disavowed the TLM.  You'll have to consult a canonist to get a specific answer though.  Fisheaters isn't really a good forum for these kinds of answers.
Reply
#28
Quote:By a bishop changing I meant that there was a new bishop, not that the person changed an opinion.

As for what you said, that is certainly flame baiting. They could certainly celebrate mass where ever it is needed, but it should be in the rite they perform. If a bishop needed to call upon an FSSP priest in an emergency, that priest could not be expected to do anything other than observe the traditions of the Church and use the proper rites. To ask him to do otherwise would be something he should defy I think.

Would you, in your hypothetical situation, require NO priests to celebrate the TLM for FSSP parishes?

Remember that both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Latin Mass make up the Latin Rite--the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms respectively. So, thus, to ask an FSSP Priest to celebrate the Novus Ordo in an emergency is to simply ask him to celebrate the Ordinary Form. And, yes, I would as NO/OF Priest to properly celebrate the TLM/EF if it was needed and I would make sure that a certain number of my Diocesan Priests are trained to celebrate the TLM/EF and I would promote greater use of the TLM/EF. Remember, I am not Anti-TLM/EF. I would definitely like to see more TLM/EF options in a given area, as well as Anglican Use and Eastern Rite options too.

Like I said, the only time I would ask an FSSP/ICKSP Priest to celebrate an NO/OF Mass would be an emergency situation where I thought it would be better for continuities sake for the NO/OF to be continued to be celebrated in that parish for the short duration of said emergency and there were no NO/OF Priests to take up the slack there.

Quote:Eastern Rite priests CANNOT celebrate the Latin rite. Latin Rite priests cannot celebrate Eastern Rites. That would be violating the rules of the Church.

You never explicitly stated requiring them to use other rites or forms, but since that is the context of this discussion, I have answered with that in mind. If you did not mean it that way, then your statement is meaningless...priests can and should perform mass and administer the sacraments. That is what they do.

I know that Easter Rite Priests celebrate their own Rites, but I meant is that I would want Eastern Rite Priests in my Diocese and celebrating their Eastern Rite. Basically, I want as many Priests in my hypothetical Diocese as possible as long as they are in good standing with Rome, regardless of their Rite or affiliated religious order/Society of Apostolic Life. If the SSPX are ever Canonically regularized, I would welcome them into my Diocese as well.
Reply
#29
[quote='nsper7' pid='467136' dateline='1257373133']
Quote:Like I said, the only time I would ask an FSSP/ICKSP Priest to celebrate an NO/OF Mass would be an emergency situation where I thought it would be better for continuities sake for the NO/OF to be continued to be celebrated in that parish for the short duration of said emergency and there were no NO/OF Priests to take up the slack there.

I don't think such a situation would ever exist... that:
1) All the sudden there are not enough NO priests that people can't get to Mass
2) Yet you have some spare FSSP priests to say Mass on top of what they already do
3) That the need is so grave that they have to say not just any Mass, but the New Mass... which by the way, traditional groups of priests don't even know how to say. (Not that you can't pick up the insanely simplified rubrics in one night, whatever...)
Reply
#30
(11-04-2009, 06:40 PM)jonkknox Wrote: [quote='nsper7' pid='467136' dateline='1257373133']
Quote:Like I said, the only time I would ask an FSSP/ICKSP Priest to celebrate an NO/OF Mass would be an emergency situation where I thought it would be better for continuities sake for the NO/OF to be continued to be celebrated in that parish for the short duration of said emergency and there were no NO/OF Priests to take up the slack there.

I don't think such a situation would ever exist... that:
1) All the sudden there are not enough NO priests that people can't get to Mass
2) Yet you have some spare FSSP priests to say Mass on top of what they already do
3) That the need is so grave that they have to say not just any Mass, but the New Mass... which by the way, traditional groups of priests don't even know how to say. (Not that you can't pick up the insanely simplified rubrics in one night, whatever...)

Obviously, such a situation would be very rare and very grave to boot. Still, in any key agreement, one should always leave contingencies for emergencies lest they be left in a situation where they either are hamstrung or must look like a liar.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)