Australian Bishop forbids TLM on Sundays in his Diocese

  • Thread starter Thread starter prettiefly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

prettiefly

Guest
As if Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae didn’t exist

William J. Wright was the parish priest of Liverpool, Australia when he was appointed bishop of the Australian diocese of Maitland-Newcastle by Pope Benedict XVI on April 4, 2011. He was subsequently consecrated on June 15, 2011. He was appointed to succeed the very liberal Bishop Michael Malone, who was only 71 when his ‘resignation’ was accepted by the Pope.

Around the time of his appointment, he was embroiled in controversy over his refusal to honor the request of 37 of his parishioners for the Traditional Latin Mass to be celebrated in their parish. Unfortunately, it seems that Bishop Wright has now extended his refusal to obey Summorum Pontificum to his entire diocese. See the letter below.

In summary: it ‘forbids’ the regular celebration of the TLM on a Sunday, and ‘permits’ only a weekly weekday TLM at most. This, in a diocese that currently has no regular TLM; for 4 years, there was a monthly weekday Mass, and for 18 months or so until recently, there was an irregularly-scheduled Sunday Mass (perhaps 6-8 times a year). Rorate has been informed that the priests who offered these Masses were from outside the diocese, and that their circumstances no longer allow them to assist.

Maitland-Newcastle is, of course, far from being the only diocese where the bishop has actively blocked the application of Summorum Pontificum. Paix Liturgique’s latest English newsletter tells the story of another such diocese: Viviers in France, where even the monthly Saturday hybrid TLM (with readings according to the Paul VI lectionary and done in French) promised a year ago by the bishop of the diocese has not yet materialized.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/10/as-if-summorum-pontificum-doesnt-exist.html
 
Well, I do wish there were some TLMs around my home, but in this case I would imagine that the bishop has it within his ecclesiastical authority to decide not to have any TLMs in his diocese. I will have to research that.
 
The Archbishop makes his case clear in his letter. It seems like a fair decision, especially considering the fact that there is no priest who can celebrate the TLM within the diocese during the weekdays (and he offers his help in finding one and even encourages seeking outside the diocese). His reasoning for not allowing on Sundays seems sound to me. Also, the fact that he took the time to answer a parishoner’s letter is very pastoral.

From what I can tell, the blog is being rather uncharitable towards Archbishop Wright. The blog title is sensationalism at its worst. Why attack the Archbishop in this way?
 
Ecclesia Dei should be notified of this. They take their time but sort things out in the end. I’ve heard of successful solutions to situations similar to this one.
 
I_Thirst said:
The Archbishop makes his case clear in his letter. It seems like a fair decision, especially considering the fact that there is no priest who can celebrate the TLM within the diocese during the weekdays (and he offers his help in finding one and even encourages seeking outside the diocese). His reasoning for not allowing on Sundays seems sound to me. Also, the fact that he took the time to answer a parishoner’s letter is very pastoral.

From what I can tell, the blog is being rather uncharitable towards Archbishop Wright. The blog title is sensationalism at its worst. Why attack the Archbishop in this way?
Click to expand...
I don’t see his “case” as anything less than the suppression that occurs in certain dioceses.

I agree with Contra Mundum.
 
TrueLight said:
I don’t see his “case” as anything less than the suppression that occurs in certain dioceses.

I agree with Contra Mundum.
Click to expand...
Ditto.

The letter itself is interesting in that it refers to SP as an “indult” which it is not. It’s also quite contradictory. If, as it implies, there is no priest capable of offering the Usus Antiquior (perhaps that should be “willing” since UE makes it quite clear that a doctorate in Latin isn’t necessary), why the objection to Sundays? If there’s “no priest” there’s no priest, Sunday or any other day. And if, as it suggests, a priest is found, again, why the objection to Sundays?

Yes, this most certainly is a case for the PCED.
 
Just a question.

What is a to do if no priest with in his diocese is willing to celebrate the EF Mass?

Or if there is a priest willing but with all the OF Masses he is not available, as canonically a priest may only celebrate one Mass a day (Can. 905 §1) except if there is a scarcity of priests then he may, if the bishop allows, celebrate two (or even three on Sundays/Holy Days) Masses (Can. 905 §2).

So, again, what is a bishop to do if all his priests are already celebrating 3 OF Masses on Sundays? Or if he has no priest willing to celebrate the EF?

SP gives the right to priests to celebrate the EF Mass but it does not oblige any priest to do so nor does it give the laity any right to have an EF Mass.

Again, this is just a question to try and understand. It is in no way an attack on anyone.
 
Nothing unusual here. Various Bishops are and have historically been opposed to the celebration of the Traditional Mass. In some cases virulently opposed to it,so I for one am not surprised at all.

Does anyone remember Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles and his opposition to the Traditional Mass?
 
ByzCath said:
Just a question.

What is a to do if no priest with in his diocese is willing to celebrate the EF Mass?

Or if there is a priest willing but with all the OF Masses he is not available, as canonically a priest may only celebrate one Mass a day (Can. 905 §1) except if there is a scarcity of priests then he may, if the bishop allows, celebrate two (or even three on Sundays/Holy Days) Masses (Can. 905 §2).

So, again, what is a bishop to do if all his priests are already celebrating 3 OF Masses on Sundays? Or if he has no priest willing to celebrate the EF?

SP gives the right to priests to celebrate the EF Mass but it does not oblige any priest to do so nor does it give the laity any right to have an EF Mass.

Again, this is just a question to try and understand. It is in no way an attack on anyone.
Click to expand...
SP does actually give laity the right to a TLM, that is in fact the entire point of the document. If there are a stable group of faithful who desire the TLM the bishop must try to supply them with a TLM, there are many ways to do this:
1)Invite one of the ‘traditional’ Catholic priestly communities i.e the FSSP or ICKSP
2)Train some of your priests to properly celebrate the TLM

In the case of priest shortage obviously a bishop would have to ask the FSSP or ICKSP to come into the diocese or possibly ask a neighbouring bishop if they have any ‘spare’ priests who can celebrate the TLM, give them faculties etc… Where theres a will there is a way and frankly if a priest is celebrating 3 NO masses why can he not celebrate 2 NO masses and one TLM mass?
 
I_Thirst said:
The Archbishop makes his case clear in his letter. It seems like a fair decision, especially considering the fact that there is no priest who can celebrate the TLM within the diocese during the weekdays (and he offers his help in finding one and even encourages seeking outside the diocese). His reasoning for not allowing on Sundays seems sound to me. Also, the fact that he took the time to answer a parishoner’s letter is very pastoral.

From what I can tell, the blog is being rather uncharitable towards Archbishop Wright. The blog title is sensationalism at its worst. Why attack the Archbishop in this way?
Click to expand...
There are two problems with the letter:
1)Its not legally sound, there is no longer any indult
2)It presupposes that a TLM would somehow negatively affect the community, would be less the whole communities mass than a NO and essentially implies that the TLM is inferior to the NO. The problem with this argument is that a TLM would be no less the whole communities mass than a NO, some people would not attend the former and some people would not attend the latter. The NO can only be called the ‘whole communities mass’ if we exclude from the community or from our reasoning those who wish to attend a TLM.
3)Oddly he appears to compare the latin form of the NO and the TLM, and even appears to imply that the only difference between the NO and the TLM is that the latter is always in latin and the former is in the vernacular. He then subtly denigrates this claiming that in his experience the only benefit from a Latin NO is ‘to improve my memory of latin’. Eveyone knows that the NO and the TLM are radically different from each other and the differences are much more than the language, therefore at the very least he appears to be completely misunderstanding and downplaying the parishioners genuine desire for the TLM.

I do not see how the blog is being uncharitable to the Archbishop, his letter appears to display an ignorance of the TLM, a bias against it and an unreasonable refusal. It could of course be that the Archbishop merely expressed himself badly but sadly I don’t think this is likely.
 
He’s a an archbishop… Archbishops deserve respect… Disagreeing with a Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, or the Holy Father is disrespect… This includes matterson the latin mass.
 
Didn’t the popes say the Bishop could not restrict the celebration of the Latin Mass, and that if a bishop tried to, a priest has the right to celebrate the TLM any way?

Motu Proprio de PP B XVI?
 
Not_Sure said:
Didn’t the popes say the Bishop could not restrict the celebration of the Latin Mass, and that if a bishop tried to, a priest has the right to celebrate the TLM any way?

Motu Proprio de PP B XVI?
Click to expand...
SP says a priest can say the EF, in private, as long as he is able to do so correctly, without the permission of his Bishop.
A priest must have permission from his Bishop to say the EF for the public.
 
I really can’t see why this Bishop would do this. Having an EF mass wouldn’t hurt anyone and refusing it just doesn’t seem right to me. 😦

I grew up with possibly the MOST liberal bishop in the US, or maybe one of the top 3, and he allowed the TLM back in the 90’s.
 
ringil said:
I really can’t see why this Bishop would do this. Having an EF mass wouldn’t hurt anyone and refusing it just doesn’t seem right to me. 😦
Click to expand...
I tend to agree.
Methinks we do not have*** ALL *** of the facts!!
 
Oneofthewomen said:
SP says a priest can say the EF, in private, as long as he is able to do so correctly, without the permission of his Bishop.
A priest must have permission from his Bishop to say the EF for the public.
Click to expand...
Not true. Pastors may publicly offer the Traditional Mass or arrange for some other priest to publicly offer the Traditional Mass in their parish without consulting their bishop at all.

It is, however, true that a bishop could have some de facto control over the celebration of the Traditional Mass by removing permission for bination.
 
mrld20 said:
He’s a an archbishop… Archbishops deserve respect… Disagreeing with a Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, or the Holy Father is disrespect… This includes matterson the latin mass.
Click to expand...
That is nonsense. It is certainly possible to respectfully disagree. Furthermore, there are bounds to authority of every bishop, excepting the bishop of Rome. When a local bishop attempts to undo a motu proprio of the Pope, he exceeds his authority.
 
mrld20 said:
Disagreeing with a Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, or the Holy Father is disrespect…
Click to expand...
Since when? Since when is disagreeing with someone a mark of disrespect? Sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes they need to know they are wrong. Fraternal Correction - look it up. Nobody here is disrespecting the man.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
I tend to agree.
Methinks we do not have*** ALL *** of the facts!!
Click to expand...
Yes that is true. The Bishops letter was in response to a private letter sent to him from a parishioner. He did state at the end of the letter that those were just his initial thoughts, and that he was going to be abroad for a month or so, and on his return he was willing to meet for more in-depth discussions.

Hopefully they can work out something in these discussions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top