Priestly Vows of Obedience
#31
(11-04-2009, 06:18 PM)nsper7 Wrote: 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.
"Simply"?

To ask a priest who sought to celebrate and was trained in the celebration of the traditional Latin mass, a mass with hundreds of years of history and thousands of years of tradition to give it up for a modern novelty from the 60's?

Simply is not the word. They are not equal.


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.
Continuity? What does that mean?
Reply
#32
Quote:"Simply"?

To ask a priest who sought to celebrate and was trained in the celebration of the traditional Latin mass, a mass with hundreds of years of history and thousands of years of tradition to give it up for a modern novelty from the 60's?

Simply is not the word. They are not equal.

Remember that Canonically speaking, the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Latin Mass are BOTH valid Forms of the Latin Rite. No Latin Rite Priest should have a problem saying one or the other Form, especially in an emergency situation. Like I said, I would not ask an FSSP, etc. Priest to celebrate according to the Ordinary Form unless basically there were no Priests who preferred celebrating the Ordinary Form available (an emergency situation).

Quote:Continuity? What does that mean?

If the people at said parish were used to the Novus Ordo. Of course, maybe they should be knocked out of their comfort zone a little bit. :)
Reply
#33
(11-04-2009, 07:04 PM)nsper7 Wrote:
Quote:"Simply"?

To ask a priest who sought to celebrate and was trained in the celebration of the traditional Latin mass, a mass with hundreds of years of history and thousands of years of tradition to give it up for a modern novelty from the 60's?

Simply is not the word. They are not equal.

Remember that Canonically speaking, the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Latin Mass are BOTH valid Forms of the Latin Rite. No Latin Rite Priest should have a problem saying one or the other Form, especially in an emergency situation. Like I said, I would not ask an FSSP, etc. Priest to celebrate according to the Ordinary Form unless basically there were no Priests who preferred celebrating the Ordinary Form available (an emergency situation).

Quote:Continuity? What does that mean?

If the people at said parish were used to the Novus Ordo. Of course, maybe they should be knocked out of their comfort zone a little bit. :)

nsper7, with this attitude, I think you will make an awful priest.  Just sayin'.
Reply
#34
(11-04-2009, 07:12 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(11-04-2009, 07:04 PM)nsper7 Wrote:
Quote:"Simply"?

To ask a priest who sought to celebrate and was trained in the celebration of the traditional Latin mass, a mass with hundreds of years of history and thousands of years of tradition to give it up for a modern novelty from the 60's?

Simply is not the word. They are not equal.

Remember that Canonically speaking, the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Latin Mass are BOTH valid Forms of the Latin Rite. No Latin Rite Priest should have a problem saying one or the other Form, especially in an emergency situation. Like I said, I would not ask an FSSP, etc. Priest to celebrate according to the Ordinary Form unless basically there were no Priests who preferred celebrating the Ordinary Form available (an emergency situation).

Quote:Continuity? What does that mean?

If the people at said parish were used to the Novus Ordo. Of course, maybe they should be knocked out of their comfort zone a little bit. :)

nsper7, with this attitude, I think you will make an awful priest.  Just sayin'.

What makes you say that? I am in favor of promoting greater use of the TLM/EF and, if possible, I would be willing to learn how to properly celebrate the TLM/EF (the order I am planning on joining, the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land, seems to be NO/OF, but I don't think they would have a huge problem with a Priest learning the TLM/EF, as long as they learned the NO/OF and were willing to celebrate it of course).
Reply
#35
(11-04-2009, 07:15 PM)nsper7 Wrote: What makes you say that? I am in favor of promoting greater use of the TLM/EF and, if possible, I would be willing to learn how to properly celebrate the TLM/EF (the order I am planning on joining, the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land, seems to be NO/OF, but I don't think they would have a huge problem with a Priest learning the TLM/EF, as long as they learned the NO/OF and were willing to celebrate it of course).

Really, you don't see anything objectionable with your attitude or behavior?

Nevermind.  I'm quite finished with you.

[Image: turtles.jpg]
Reply
#36
(11-04-2009, 07:28 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(11-04-2009, 07:15 PM)nsper7 Wrote: What makes you say that? I am in favor of promoting greater use of the TLM/EF and, if possible, I would be willing to learn how to properly celebrate the TLM/EF (the order I am planning on joining, the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land, seems to be NO/OF, but I don't think they would have a huge problem with a Priest learning the TLM/EF, as long as they learned the NO/OF and were willing to celebrate it of course).

Really, you don't see anything objectionable with your attitude or behavior?

Nevermind.  I'm quite finished with you.

[Image: turtles.jpg]

What is that supposed to mean? As best as I can tell, my opinion is in line with that of the Church: both the TLM and NO are valid and licit Forms of the Latin Rite. Quite frankly, I find the behavior of a lot of the people here objectionable: personal insults against various recent Popes, rude statements, generalizations, you name it...
Reply
#37
Validity is not the end all / be all. To say that FSSP priests (and the like) should have no qualms celebrating the NO because it is valid is quite a legalistic / minimalist / bare bones approach to Mass.

Is a NO with the usual EMHCs, altar servers, banal music, non-Roman Canon EP, versus populum, etc valid? Yes. Does that mean it is on equal grounds with the TLM? No, of course not. Many, particularly those in question, would argue that it is spiritually deficient and harmful to the Faith.

To expect them to celebrate a Mass that explicitly goes against their charism (40 yrs of novelty versus hundreds of years of organic growth and tradition) is absurd. Just because it is valid don't make it right.
Reply
#38
(11-04-2009, 07:41 PM)franklinf Wrote: Validity is not the end all / be all. To say that FSSP priests (and the like) should have no qualms celebrating the NO because it is valid is quite a legalistic / minimalist / bare bones approach to Mass.

Is a NO with the usual EMHCs, altar servers, banal music, non-Roman Canon EP, versus populum, etc valid? Yes. Does that mean it is on equal grounds with the TLM? No, of course not. Many, particularly those in question, would argue that it is spiritually deficient and harmful to the Faith.

To expect them to celebrate a Mass that explicitly goes against their charism (40 yrs of novelty versus hundreds of years of organic growth and tradition) is absurd. Just because it is valid don't make it right.

As I said, the only time I would even consider asking an FSSP, etc. Priest to celebrate an NO/OF Mass would be some crazy emergency situation where there were Priests who preferred/usually celebrated the NO/OF available to meet the needs of the element of the Catholic flock that prefers the NO/OF.

EDIT: And, as I said earlier, I would push for more Diocesan Priests to learn to celebrate the TLM/EF to meet the needs of the element of the Catholic flock that prefers the TLM/EF.
Reply
#39
(11-04-2009, 07:04 PM)nsper7 Wrote: Remember that Canonically speaking, the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Latin Mass are BOTH valid Forms of the Latin Rite. No Latin Rite Priest should have a problem saying one or the other Form, especially in an emergency situation. Like I said, I would not ask an FSSP, etc. Priest to celebrate according to the Ordinary Form unless basically there were no Priests who preferred celebrating the Ordinary Form available (an emergency situation).
Yes, there should be a problem. One is inferior to the other. It isn't just a difference of "style".

Quote:If the people at said parish were used to the Novus Ordo. Of course, maybe they should be knocked out of their comfort zone a little bit. :)
It isn't about comfort! This is the Body and Blood of Christ. What if they were "comfortable" with jokes and balloons during mass?

The mass is not a social gathering. In fact, I kind of like some of the Eastern traditions where there is a very clear separation between the priest and the laity.
Reply
#40
(11-04-2009, 07:46 PM)nsper7 Wrote:
(11-04-2009, 07:41 PM)franklinf Wrote: Validity is not the end all / be all. To say that FSSP priests (and the like) should have no qualms celebrating the NO because it is valid is quite a legalistic / minimalist / bare bones approach to Mass.

Is a NO with the usual EMHCs, altar servers, banal music, non-Roman Canon EP, versus populum, etc valid? Yes. Does that mean it is on equal grounds with the TLM? No, of course not. Many, particularly those in question, would argue that it is spiritually deficient and harmful to the Faith.

To expect them to celebrate a Mass that explicitly goes against their charism (40 yrs of novelty versus hundreds of years of organic growth and tradition) is absurd. Just because it is valid don't make it right.

As I said, the only time I would even consider asking an FSSP, etc. Priest to celebrate an NO/OF Mass would be some crazy emergency situation where there were Priests who preferred/usually celebrated the NO/OF available to meet the needs of the element of the Catholic flock that prefers the NO/OF.

We know as you said.

Do you know what we said?

And it wasn't "asking" you said, but commanding.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)