Apostolic Administration for Traditional Latin Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Swiss_Guard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Swiss_Guard

Guest
I was wondering what people think about an Apostolic Administration for the Tridentine Mass? An Apostolic Administration is what the Society of St. John Vianney has in Brazil. Bishop Rifan is the bishop for all the Tridentine Masses. In other words, the local bishops have no say as to what goes on in the Tridentine Mass. They can’t keep it out of their diocese, they can’t have the Mass at obscure times like 4:00 on a Sunday afternoon and they can’t cause any trouble for priests who want to say the Latin Mass.
Do you think this would be a good idea for the United States? For the entire Church? Would it help facilitate a reconciliation with SSPX?
I know one of the concerns with SSPX is the bishops will want them to say the Novus Ordo and SSPX won’t get any support from Rome. If Bishop Fellay were one of the Apostolic Administrators, would that be a way to get SSPX regularized with Rome?
I think it would be a good idea. I first heard of this about a year ago. Fr. William Ashley of Opus Mariae Mediatrics has sent a petition to Rome for one. I think it’s the only way to ensure the Latin Mass is said without interference from the Cardinal Mahony crowd.
 
**I think it would be a good idea. **
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. A lot of details would have to be worked out, for certain.

Would the “tridentine” bishop have jurisdiction over the marriage annulments of his faithful, how would the tridentine faithful be defined if he were? If someone attends a tridentine mass regularly, or only occasionally? How about someone who isn’t in regular attendance at mass, are they still under the tridentine bishop or do they revert back?

Or is the idea just to have the bishop rule over the tridentine rite priests, and not the faithful at all?
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
Maybe, maybe not. A lot of details would have to be worked out, for certain.

Would the “tridentine” bishop have jurisdiction over the marriage annulments of his faithful, how would the tridentine faithful be defined if he were? If someone attends a tridentine mass regularly, or only occasionally? How about someone who isn’t in regular attendance at mass, are they still under the tridentine bishop or do they revert back?

Or is the idea just to have the bishop rule over the tridentine rite priests, and not the faithful at all?
Click to expand...
I believe the jurisdiction is over the priests. At least that’s the impression I got from Fr. Ashley’s petition and the Apostolic Administration in Brazil.
I’m not sure on annulments, but I believe if someone is married at a Tridentine Mass the bishop would have jurisdiction.
I need to check on these excellent questions. Please post the information if you know the answers.
 
I’m not sure how I feel about usurping the authority of local bishops.
 
IDK why SSPX cant come home there is a religous order in the catholic church who just celebrates trindentine masses or atleast is just trained in them. (Name escapes me at the time.)
 
40.png
atsheeran:
I’m not sure how I feel about usurping the authority of local bishops.
Click to expand...
It’s not usurping authority of the local bishops, since an Apostolic Administration is approved by Rome. It’s working in Brazil with Bishop Rifan and the Society of St. John Vianney. It was one of the means used to reconcile SSJV with the Church and I think it would be effective in reconciling SSPX.
Besides, the bishops don’t have the authority to prohibit the Latin Mass. John Paul II called for a wide and generous application of the 1962 Missal and the bishops have done anything but be generous.
An Apostolic Administration means the local bishop can no longer be disobedient to the Holy See, as they would not have any control over the Tridentine Mass. They could go on with their abuses and the Latin Mass could go on with all its reverence.
What the local bishops fear is an increase of attendance at the Latin Mass, thus proving all their abuses and wreckovation of churches are wrong.
 
Swiss Guard:
Besides, the bishops don’t have the authority to prohibit the Latin Mass. John Paul II called for a wide and generous application of the 1962 Missal and the bishops have done anything but be generous.
Click to expand...
By who’s definition of generous.

I have asked this before and it has been ignored. Who is to fund a Trad Latin Mass if there is not enough taken in tithes at such a Mass? It costs, the bishop must provide for the priest and the church the Mass is celebrated in. There is not always enought going to the Mass to keep it going.
An Apostolic Administration means the local bishop can no longer be disobedient to the Holy See, as they would not have any control over the Tridentine Mass. They could go on with their abuses and the Latin Mass could go on with all its reverence.
What the local bishops fear is an increase of attendance at the Latin Mass, thus proving all their abuses and wreckovation of churches are wrong.
Click to expand...
These two paragraphs contain nothing but disrespect and slander. You paint to broad with this brush and I think you need to retract it.

It is statements like this that make others dislike your attitude.
 
I’m not sure I understand the question. Would this be like a separate rite within the Church, with their own bishops, dioceses, parishes, property, disciplines, etc.?

If it is, I think the danger is of setting up a parallel Church, like what the SSPX is now. A priest could operate within the jurisdiction of a local Latin Rite bishop but not be under his authority? I don’t care for that idea.

However, if it’s just the Holy See attempting to organize Traditionalists and give them some official standing within the Church, I’m all for it. 👍
 
Aren’t there priests operating churches that are not under the authority of “local bishop” of the archdiocese such as in the case of religious orders and such. I mean does a St. Benedict monsatary operate under the local bishop or does it operate under itself with authority granted by Rome?

And I am talking about churches in communion with Rome.
 
Dr. Bombay:
If it is, I think the danger is of setting up a parallel Church, like what the SSPX is now. A priest could operate within the jurisdiction of a local Latin Rite bishop but not be under his authority? I don’t care for that idea.
Click to expand...
The apostolic administrator would be directly under the authority of the Holy Father, so the situation would be quite different than the SSPX schism.

Priests of a personal apostolic administration would be under the authority of a bishop whose jurisdiction is personal rather than territorial. It would be much like the situation we have right now with the archdiocese of the military. The archbishop of the military (I forget his name) has authority over members of the military, and he can set up chapels and such for the benefit of military members. He isn’t really taking any power away from local (territorial bishops).
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Aren’t there priests operating churches that are not under the authority of “local bishop” of the archdiocese such as in the case of religious orders and such. I mean does a St. Benedict monsatary operate under the local bishop or does it operate under itself with authority granted by Rome?
Click to expand...
To some extent, religious orders have some independence from the local ordinary, but the bishops does have quite a bit of influence over them.

There is something called an abbey nullius, which answers directly to the authority of the Holy Father. However, I believe the last such abbey nullius was recently eliminated.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
By who’s definition of generous.

I have asked this before and it has been ignored. Who is to fund a Trad Latin Mass if there is not enough taken in tithes at such a Mass? It costs, the bishop must provide for the priest and the church the Mass is celebrated in. There is not always enought going to the Mass to keep it going.
Click to expand...
I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION ABOUT FUNDING! YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE ME!!!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=42337

Here is my answer from the above thread:

One does not have to be an FSSP or ICR priest to offer the Tridentine Mass. The three churches in the Archdiocese of Chicago that have the Tridentine Mass every Sunday are not FSSP or ICR. The Masses are said by diocesean priests or by priests of a religious order, such as the Augustinians and SVD’s. The idea that there can be no Tridentine Mass because it would cost too much to bring in an FSSP or ICR priest is absurd.
It seems you deliberately ignore people who answer your questions and then complain that you’re being ignored. Stop it, it’s beneath you.
40.png
ByzCath:
These two paragraphs contain nothing but disrespect and slander. You paint to broad with this brush and I think you need to retract it.

It is statements like this that make others dislike your attitude.
Click to expand...
First of all, it’s too broad with this brush, not to broad with this brush. Your use of grammar is incorrect. I point this out because you could use some humility.
Here are the two paragraphs you mention:
**An Apostolic Administration means the local bishop can no longer be disobedient to the Holy See, as they would not have any control over the Tridentine Mass. They could go on with their abuses and the Latin Mass could go on with all its reverence.
Click to expand...
What the local bishops fear is an increase of attendance at the Latin Mass, thus proving all their abuses and wreckovation of churches are wrong.**
Click to expand...
You said these two paragraphs contain nothing but disrespect and slander without giving any reason. We’re supposed to believe something because you said so?
Granted, not all local bishops are disobedient. There are bishops who obey the Holy Father and have been generous in allowing the Tridentine Mass. However, the clear majority of bishops are not obedient to the Holy Father.
I suppose there are no abuses in the Mass. I suppose bishops like Mahony and his gang are obedient to the Holy Father. I suppose bishops like Weakland didn’t wreckovate any churches. I suppose if I stick my head in the sand like you everything is fine.
I’m sick and tired of your attitude towards the Tridentine Mass and anyone who wants to attend it. You accuse me of painting with too broad of a brush but label me as a trad. If you would take time to read what I write instead of putting words in my mouth you would know I attend the Novus Ordo Mass daily. I have never and will never deny the validity and licitness of a Mass promulgated by the Vicar of Christ. I agree with Fr. Corapi when he says Vatican II has been a blessing for the Church. Despite all of this, I’m sure you’ll go right on labelling me as a trad because it fits your warped, pre-conceived notion of anyone who likes the Tridentine Mass.
You’re nothing but a pompous blowhard who is in dire need of humility!
 
Here is a link which explains an Apostolic Administration:

catholic-church.org/church-unity/apos_a_e.htm
In 1991 the Vatican established Apostolic Administrations, each one of which is overlooked by an apostolic administrator. However, and erroneously so, a lot of Catholics refer to these administrations as dioceses and to the administrators as diocesan bishops.
Click to expand...
They are a creation of the Latin Church’s 1983 Code of Canon Law. This 1983 concept was a development of the ‘apostolic administrator’ as presented by the 1917 codification of Catholic ecclesial law by Pope Benedict XV. Until 1983 an apostolic administrator was seen as one who administrates a diocese in the name of the Pope.
Click to expand...
In 1983 the Latin Church developed the idea of an ‘apostolic administrator’ a step further, by allowing for the creation of, what were to be called ‘apostolic administrations’, by the Pope as Patriarch of the West, that is of the Latin Church. Accordingly, the Latin Church sometimes sees that there is a need for some type of ecclesial structure and order, in areas where there are Catholic communities, but where there are important reasons for not establishing dioceses. Such reasons can be political instability, lack of any internal structures and ecumenical concerns.
Click to expand...
I hope this helps everyone have a better understanding of an Apostolic Administration.
 
This link is the establishment of an Apostolic Administration for the Society of St. John Vianney in Campos, Brazil. It also includes their reconciliation with Rome, but I can only include part of the establishment of the administration due to excessive amount of characters.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2CAMPO.HTM
LETTER OF CANONICAL ESTABLISHMENT
Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, President of Ecclesia Dei
****Cardinal presents Letter of Canonical Establishment at Campos, Brazil

**On Friday, 18 January, in Holy Saviour Cathedral, Campos, Brazil, on the occasion of the establishment of the personal Apostolic Administration “St John Mary Vianney”, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, presented the Holy Father’s Autograph Letter to the Apostolic Administrator. Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos gave the following allocution in Italian. Here is a translation.

The Holy Father realized that the letter addressed to him by our dear Brother, Bishop Licinio Rangel, together with the priests of the Union of St John Mary Vianney was written on the date of the Solemnity of the Assumption (15 August 2001). The Pope of the Totus tuus could not but accept, his heart overflowing with joy, your request to be accepted into the fullness of communion and to receive the juridical recognition of your reality as Catholics in the one Church.

**I thus bring you the fatherly heart of the Vicar of Christ, the universal Pastor, the Rock, on whom Christ chose to found his Church. **

Before putting into practice what the Holy Father John Paul II has disposed, I would like to address truly fraternal and cordial thanks to the Venerable Brothers, Bishop Roberto Gomes Guimarães of this Diocese, for his generous and cordial collaboration, and Bishop Licinio Rangel, for his good will and courage in taking this step. My sincere gratitude goes to their patient and generous spokesman, Fr Fernando Rifan. My warm thanks also to the priests of the St John Mary Vianney Association, and to the priests of the Diocese of Campos who, from this day on, will be united in the heart of the Good Shepherd.

All labour for this holy cause for which the Saviour prayed (cf. Jn 17,6-26) will always be done joyfully, and I believe that none of us will ever refuse the fatigue.

"Where charity and love abide, there God is ever found"! (ex Lit.).

May charity and love abound ever more in this Diocese of Campos and in this Apostolic Administration of St John Mary Vianney, established today through the intercession of Mary, Full of Grace, thereby fulfilling the exhortation of Pope St Leo the Great: “the structure of our unity can not remain firm if the inseparable force of the bond of love has not bound us with inseparable power” (Letter to Bishop Anastasius, 14,1-2,11).

This is my wish, that becomes a prayer.
Click to expand...
 
ByzCath,

Easy. Take away the money from the communist driven social justice programs and so called lay ministry in the dioceses and you have more than enough money.

As for generousity, you tell me. There’s no “diocese affiliated” Tridentine Mass in Orlando. But if I want to be “healed” by some charismatic lady or hear a Mass in a dozen languages other than Latin, that could be done at anytime.
 
I don’t understand why people say the “SSPX schism”.

The SSPX are just upholding the traditional mass which until the 60’s - all the priests before this second vatican council said the latin mass anyway! It is not the SSPX that have left the church, it is the post-vatican modernist new order and its faithful that have left the church.

The SSPX are only trying to restore the roman rite and they never ever claim to be the church at all.

The bishops of the SSPX do not have any jurisdiction, therefore with the marriages etc, the priests of the SSPX always apply to the local bishop - who grants permission (well the one here does anyway).

The reason why the SSPX cannot reach an agreement with Rome is partly (in my opinion) - because are they able to trust Rome? One minute the pope may say something conservative and then the next minute he says something totally opposite to what he had said before. I mean, if the SSPX do come to an agreement, how do they know that Rome will honour any such agreement and not turn their backs and expect them to do other things?

Anyway, I’m kind of talking off the subject, and getting a bit too off the point.
 
40.png
tradcatmel:
I don’t understand why people say the “SSPX schism”.

The SSPX are just upholding the traditional mass which until the 60’s - all the priests before this second vatican council said the latin mass anyway! It is not the SSPX that have left the church, it is the post-vatican modernist new order and its faithful that have left the church.
Click to expand...
If “the church” were defined by a certain Missal then you would be correct.

We can identify whether someone has left the Church by whether that person accepts, and submits to, the authority of the See of Peter, which was established by Christ to lead His Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top