Archdiocese of Atlanta

  • Thread starter Thread starter Homerun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Homerun

Guest
I understand that this thread will only apply to some of you, but I am interested in finding out the answers to a few questions that I have about the Archdiocese of Atlanta. I would like to know how traditional it is in comparison with other archdioceses throughout the country. Would you say that it is moving in a traditional direction? Further, I’m writing a letter to the archbishop, Wilton D. Gregory, about spreading the Latin Mass in the area, but I’m not sure if he would be receptive to it. My intent is not to talk about individual people on this forum without their knowledge, but I don’t know where else to ask. Is this request something that this particular archdiocese would respond to favorably? This knowledge would help when writing my letter. If anyone has ever successfully initiated ongoing dialogue with their bishop, could you please share some tips? I’m going to try to get several priests to endorse my letter so that it carries a bit more weight. Good idea?
 
The Bishops have already allowed the TLM to be said. It is up to the local parishes to offer it. Even more difficult is finding priest that can/will say it.

-or so I think I was told…
 
I reside in the Diocese of Savannah (Georgia’s other diocese), so I’m not too familiar with the Atlanta Archdiocese.

However, I am familiar with Una Voce of Georgia, which is a pretty active organization (unavoce-ga.org) that seems to be doing a good job with the Latin Mass “movement” in Georgia. You may want to contact them via the link I provided (when I did, I got a very quick response).
 
I have no direct experience of Abp. Gregory’s administration, but did move into a diocese fresh upon his transfer out (so the world I saw was the one he had overseen during his tenure). From that experience my impression is that His Excellency could probably care less about spreading the TLM (he’s just not on that side of the American bishops’ spectrum), though he may not be outright opposed, either.
 
The Bishops have already allowed the TLM to be said. It is up to the local parishes to offer it. Even more difficult is finding priest that can/will say it.

-or so I think I was told…
Individual priests need not ask permission of their bishops to say the TLM anymore. Read Summorum Pontificum:

In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church (Art. 5. § 1).

The motu proprio places the decision in the hands of pastors rather than bishops, as had been the case in the days of Ecclesia Dei adflicta.
 
From roughly 1992 until 2004* I was a parishioner at the Cathedral of Christ the King with occasional stops at Sacred Heart in downtown Atlanta. I enjoyed my time there.

I would say that the Archdiocese is not heading in a traditional direction. My understanding is that Archbishop Gregory would not promote the Tridentine Mass. I am not sure whether he would block it. I think the Archbishop has his hands full building new schools to accommodate the growing demand for Catholic schools!

There is an FSSP parish in Mableton:

francisdesales.com/
  • So my information may be out of date.
 
I reside in the Diocese of Savannah (Georgia’s other diocese), so I’m not too familiar with the Atlanta Archdiocese.
Actually, Savannah, Charlotte, Raleigh, and Charleston are all dioceses under the Archdiocese of Atlanta. So, all ‘direction’ would go through there.
 
Actually, Savannah, Charlotte, Raleigh, and Charleston are all dioceses under the Archdiocese of Atlanta. So, all ‘direction’ would go through there.
Please explain. the Arch Bishop is not the Boss of the other bishops. He can not make any desicssion for diocese other than his own.
 
The bishops all report to Rome. However, at least in the US, the dioceses are split into Ecclesiastical Provinces.
I believe that you may be confused by the following sentence in your link.

“Each of these jurisdictions is under the direction of an Archbishop and Bishop called an Ordinary, who has apostolic responsibility and authority for the pastoral service of the people in his care.”

Unfortunately, the sentence structure gives the impression that the Metropolitan has responsibility and authority over the dioceses in his province. This is not the case. The sentence is poorly written.

Each bishop is autonomous. Pope Benedict XVI just made this very clear, again. The role of the Metropolitan Archbishop is twofold. He serves as the President of the Episcopal Conference for his province and he chairs all coordinated efforts between the bishops within his province. He has no apostolic responsibility for the people in the dioceses within his province nor does he have authority in the individual dioceses. Each diocese constitutes an independent local Church. Each bishop answers directly to the Holy See.

His other role is to represent his province before the Holy See. This does not mean that a bishop, who is the Ordinary of a diocese, cannot represent his own diocese. The Metropolitan represents his province, when asked to do so either by the province or by the Holy See.

I know that analogies always have a weakness, but for the sake of clarity, imagine the Metropolitan like a senator. They do not trump to the governor of a state. Each governor is autonomous. The same applies to the Ordinary of the diocese. He is in effect the governor. Though his senator can represent his state, he has no authority within the state.

Very often, provinces, also known as local episcopal conferences, agree to cooperate on certain pastoral projects or to combine their voices to make a statement. The person who speaks for the group would be the Metropolitan.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Thanks Brother! Many of the documents pertaining to our Church have always confused me. It is very cool to be set straight by a Franciscan because I am Franciscan educated.

Peace!
 
Thanks Brother! Many of the documents pertaining to our Church have always confused me. It is very cool to be set straight by a Franciscan because I am Franciscan educated.

Peace!
I’m sure that you had a great education. 👍

Spanish and English speakers must be very careful when reading church writings. There are many registers in both languages. What the Vatican tends to do is to translate them into what is called “standard” register. For example, something is translated into standard English. However, each English-speaking country has its own register: mechanics, grammar, spelling, vocaluary and sometimes sentence structue. Some documents are then translated from English to English, but not always. The Spanish speaking have the same problem. There are many variations on these two languages.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I reside in the Archdiocese of Atlanta. It is my experince that most pastors of their parish’s have a basic free-run of how contemporary or how traditional they want thier parish’s to be. My parish is, unfortunately, one of the most liberal in the Archdiocese I believe. We have occasional litrugical abuses in the Mass, but I have never heard out and out Heresy preached.

We do, as an earlier poster said, have one parish devouted to the Latin Mass, I have attended it once and it was very beautiful.
 
In South Carolina there are currently four Parishes that offer the EF. There is also one Parish in the Charleston area that is independant(sede) that has the TLM. The closest upstate parish to me is Prince of Peace in Taylors, SC. About 45 miles one way. The other Parishes are near Charleston.
North Carolina has more offerings of the EF and also has at least one SSPX Chapel.
Individual Ordinaries seem to have mixed responses to requests for the EF. I have made several requests to my Bishop since S.P. with no response.:confused:
 
In South Carolina there are currently four Parishes that offer the EF. There is also one Parish in the Charleston area that is independant(sede) that has the TLM. The closest upstate parish to me is Prince of Peace in Taylors, SC. About 45 miles one way. The other Parishes are near Charleston.
North Carolina has more offerings of the EF and also has at least one SSPX Chapel.
Individual Ordinaries seem to have mixed responses to requests for the EF. I have made several requests to my Bishop since S.P. with no response.:confused:
As far as celebrating the mass in the Extraordinary Form, one has to remember that the hands of the bishops are often tied in this matter. Let’s take a closer look.

SP said that any secular priest can celebrate the mass in the EF. It does not say that they have to do so. A bishop cannot demand it. That would be an abuse of power, especially because the promise of obedience that secular deacons and secular priests make does not include this area.

SP also said that priests who are religious, also known as regular priests, must follow the guidelines of their major superiors and the laws of their institutes. If a religious is a priest and he serves a diocese by administering a parish for the diocese, the bishop cannot demand anything from him that would be in conflict with the wishes of the religious superior. The authority of the religious superior trumps that of the bishop. These men are bound to follow diocesan policies as long as these policies do not conflict with internal rules and internal authority. Then they have to turn to their superior. If a bishop were to demand that a religious celebrate the EF, he may find himself in a conflict with the superior. He may request that the superior find someone, but he cannot order it.

Superiors cannot demand that their priests celebrate the EF. That’s not allowed. That’s an abuse of power. The superior can only demand that the religious do their job. That may be saying mass on Sunday and weekdays.

In other words, people in authority don’t always have the kind of power that we think they have. You may not get an answer, because he can’t find anyone to celebrate the EF, not because he’s against it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
As far as celebrating the mass in the Extraordinary Form, one has to remember that the hands of the bishops are often tied in this matter. Let’s take a closer look.

SP said that any secular priest can celebrate the mass in the EF. It does not say that they have to do so. A bishop cannot demand it. That would be an abuse of power, especially because the promise of obedience that secular deacons and secular priests make does not include this area.

SP also said that priests who are religious, also known as regular priests, must follow the guidelines of their major superiors and the laws of their institutes. If a religious is a priest and he serves a diocese by administering a parish for the diocese, the bishop cannot demand anything from him that would be in conflict with the wishes of the religious superior. The authority of the religious superior trumps that of the bishop. These men are bound to follow diocesan policies as long as these policies do not conflict with internal rules and internal authority. Then they have to turn to their superior. If a bishop were to demand that a religious celebrate the EF, he may find himself in a conflict with the superior. He may request that the superior find someone, but he cannot order it.

Superiors cannot demand that their priests celebrate the EF. That’s not allowed. That’s an abuse of power. The superior can only demand that the religious do their job. That may be saying mass on Sunday and weekdays.

In other words, people in authority don’t always have the kind of power that we think they have. You may not get an answer, because he can’t find anyone to celebrate the EF, not because he’s against it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
I understand your point Brother, and thank you, but i must wonder about the following text from S.P.

Art. 5. §1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonizes with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favoring the unity of the whole Church.

Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 §1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. **The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

**My local parishes are served by Oratorians(C.O.) They serve as priests in all five parishes in the county. The Oratorians in England and Canada are strongly supportive of the EF. Our local Oratorians ignore any requests for an EF Mass at any of our parishes at any time. Several of our Oratorians are well acquainted with the EF since that was the Mass they offered for years prior to VII and the OF. I sincerely apprieciate my Priests and pray for them daily. I do wish that a greater effort would be placed on expanding the offering of the EF within the Diocese.
 
I am getting a little confused by this thread. I read in another thread (sorry but I can’t recall which one otherwise I’d provide a link to it) that S.P. doesn’t give priests carte blanche to celebrate the EF Mass.

I understand that any priest can celebrate the EF Mass sine populo and that members of the faithful can ask to attend the Mass.

I heard that a priest cannot regularly schedule a public EF Mass celebrated cum populo without his bishop’s consent because the bishop has the right to regulate the liturgy in his diocese.

Also, doesn’t a priest has to be well versed in the rubrics of the EF Mass and to have good enough Latin to celebrate the EF Mass?
 
I understand your point Brother, and thank you, but i must wonder about the following text from S.P.

.
The Oratorians are secular priests. They are not religious. They belong to the Congregation of the Oratory. They are secular priests who live in communities called Oratories. Each oratory is autonomous. They do not have a common rule like the Franciscans, Augustnians or Carmelites. They don’t have a central Superior General as we do. They are loosely connected. Each oratory is free to do as it wishes. They follow the teachings of St. Philip Neri.

On the other hand, because they are Oratorians, they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the bishop either. Their work in the parish falls under his jurisdiction, because the local bishop is the pastor of all his parishes. But he cannot command the Oratorians to celebrate the EF.

SP is very careful in its choice of words. Observe the part that you selected. It does not use words such as “Must, have to, shall”. The Holy Father avoids these terms, because he knows that he cannot demand this of secular priests, since their promise of obedience does not require that they obey in this area. He certainly cannot impose this on any priest who belongs to a religious order, because he knows that priests who belong to religious orders are religious first and they exercise their priestly ministry obedient to a tradition. They are bound to obey their superiors and their constitutions. The pope cannot ask them to disobey their superiors or their constitutions, that would be asking them to commit a sin. He does not ask them to impose their will on their brothers. That would be a sin. If the other members of the community do not want the EF, the one member who does want it may have to submit to his brothers out of obedience. The superior and the rule make that final call. Some rules require that you obey your brothers.

That’s why the pope uses the term “requested”. He is asking the bishops to work to make the EF happen when it’s requested by the laity. Just as the laity aks for the EF, it cannot demand it, the pope also asks for it, he does not demand it of the bishops.

He also says that it must be done under the guidance of the bishop and avoding conflicts. This is important. The secular clergy of a diocese may celebrate the EF without having to ask for permission. However, the Holy Father recognizes that the bishop remains the pastor. The pastor calls the shots for his parishes. A priest can celebrate the EF, but a bishop can legally say, “Not in one of my parishes.” He cannot stop the priest from celebrating the EF, but he can say where they celebrate it. Normally, bishops are not that harsh. But they have that right. The Holy Father acknowledges it and does not take it away from them.

His also very wise. He understands that this can cause conflict in some parishes. He makes it clear that it must happen without conflict. That’s going to be a judgment call made at the local level. The local pastor and the bishop will have to decide if it can happen without conflict. Remember, conflict does not have to mean a fight. It can simply be a conflict as in a shortage of priests to do this. If you have five masses and two priests, you have a problem, even without the EF. A priest should not celebrate more than two masses.

A conflict can be one of purpose. If you have a community such as Franciscans running your parish, our focus in on preaching, penance, brotherhood, poverty, obedience to Francis, serving our brothers, converting Catholics to Catholicism, running soup kitchens and monastic observances. In places where the celebration of the EF interferes with this, it’s going to be put on the back burner for future consideration.

I know very little about the Oratorians. If they feel that the EF does not contribute to their community life, they’re going to put it on the back burner, just as other religious orders would do. Communities use the means given to them in their statutes to serve the people of God. The EF may or may not fit into this big picture. Being part of a community is always going to cause a tension for the members. On the one hand, you have the laity and its requirements and on the other hand you have the community and its requirements. It’s not always easy to reconcile the two. Sometimes you can reconcile the two and sometimes you have to decide in favor of your community. You may never decide in favor of the laity. That is not allowed of religious.

That’s why the Holy Father does not command, he requests, he suggests, he recommends and he encourages. He understands the tension involved for the community man and for the diocesan priest too. He also understands the desire of the laity.

Now that you see how complicated this can be, maybe you can see why some bishops were so upset when SP was issued. For some it was like “Life just became more complicated. Where am I going to get priests who want to do this and who can do it right?”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
If you know any priest who is interested, the FSSP will provide training in saying the Latin Mass. I am realizing how blessed I am to be at a parish where we have the Latin Mass every Sunday! I use a missal from the early 1900’s, by Father Stedman.🙂
 
I am getting a little confused by this thread. I read in another thread (sorry but I can’t recall which one otherwise I’d provide a link to it) that S.P. doesn’t give priests carte blanche to celebrate the EF Mass.

I understand that any priest can celebrate the EF Mass sine populo and that members of the faithful can ask to attend the Mass.

I heard that a priest cannot regularly schedule a public EF Mass celebrated cum populo without his bishop’s consent because the bishop has the right to regulate the liturgy in his diocese.

Also, doesn’t a priest has to be well versed in the rubrics of the EF Mass and to have good enough Latin to celebrate the EF Mass?
Read Summorum Pontificum; you’ll find that permission by bishops is mentioned nowhere. (Rather, Article 7 states that “If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 s. 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes”; so it is the bishop who should be giving generously, not regulating in a negative sense.) It is the parish priest who “should willingly accept requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962”.

Any impediments to the motu proprio issued on a diocesan basis by individual bishops would constitute an act of disobedience to the Holy Father’s intentions as well as a lack of charity for the good of souls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top