Australian Bishop forbids TLM on Sundays in his Diocese

[Paul_theApostle]

In Melbourne Australia ,we have this parish which does Latin Mass -

newman-community-melbourne.org/

 

[LumenGent]

When a local bishop attempts to undo a motu proprio of the Pope, he exceeds his authority.

Actually, a Bishop may dispense with a motu proprio if it be for the good of the faithful in his diocese and he wouldn’t be exceeding his authority in doing so. It is somewhere in Canon Law. I’ll look it up when I get the chance.

Anyway, regarding the key point of the Bishop refusing the celebration of the EF, one must keep in mind that the situation in Australia is very much different to what it is in the USA. Not many Priest’s can or do celebrate the EF. In any event, it is a matter for the Bishop to decide and the avenue is still open in appealing to the PCED.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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 disagree. SP does not grant any rights to the laity. No priest is obliged to celebrate the EF. No bishop is forced to look for priests outside of his diocese to fill in. After all these priests must be paid. I believe that is part of what a “stable group” would be, can they support a priest.

If no priest within a diocese can celebrate the EF either due to lack of will or ability (that is they are already celebrating the allowed number of OF Masses) then what is a bishop to do, especially if he does not have the means to support a priest from outside of the diocese?

As for the issue of a priest who is already celebrating three OF Masses, why not make it two OF Masses and one EF Mass? Well if you feel that the laity have a right to the EF Mass then that would mean that the laity also has a right to the OF Mass so how does one group’s right over power the other group’s right especially when they are already being accommodated for?

 

[FAB]

I disagree. SP does not grant any rights to the laity. No priest is obliged to celebrate the EF. No bishop is forced to look for priests outside of his diocese to fill in. After all these priests must be paid. I believe that is part of what a “stable group” would be, can they support a priest.

If no priest within a diocese can celebrate the EF either due to lack of will or ability (that is they are already celebrating the allowed number of OF Masses) then what is a bishop to do, especially if he does not have the means to support a priest from outside of the diocese?

As for the issue of a priest who is already celebrating three OF Masses, why not make it two OF Masses and one EF Mass? Well if you feel that the laity have a right to the EF Mass then that would mean that the laity also has a right to the OF Mass so how does one group’s right over power the other group’s right especially when they are already being accommodated for?

I agree with Brother David. Part of having a stable group means that group must support and pay not only the preist but all the bells and wistles for the EF.

Just because a few want it does not mean the diocese has to any extrordianry means to provide it such as taking from other programs. The answer is easy, the stable group needs to go the bishop with a longrang plan of how they will build churchs, recruite and train priest and have a continuing congregation to support the EF. If not they should be no expectations that it will be provided.

 

[jmj1984]

I disagree. SP does not grant any rights to the laity. No priest is obliged to celebrate the EF. No bishop is forced to look for priests outside of his diocese to fill in. After all these priests must be paid. I believe that is part of what a “stable group” would be, can they support a priest.

If no priest within a diocese can celebrate the EF either due to lack of will or ability (that is they are already celebrating the allowed number of OF Masses) then what is a bishop to do, especially if he does not have the means to support a priest from outside of the diocese?

As for the issue of a priest who is already celebrating three OF Masses, why not make it two OF Masses and one EF Mass? Well if you feel that the laity have a right to the EF Mass then that would mean that the laity also has a right to the OF Mass so how does one group’s right over power the other group’s right especially when they are already being accommodated for?

I’m confused, how can you say SP doesnt grant rights to the laity? It clearly gives them the rite to the TLM if its possible. I am not sure how obligating priests to celebrate the TLM comes into it, I never said anything about obligating priests. I said the bishop was under an obligation to find a way to provide a TLM if the conditions in SP are met, clearly if its impossible to do so this obligation is dispenses with.

As for the second part of your response I’m confused, if a priest is already celebrating three NO masses the group is already provided for, it is those who want the TLM who are not provided for at all.

 

[FAB]

As for the second part of your response I’m confused, if a priest is already celebrating three NO masses the group is already provided for, it is those who want the TLM who are not provided for at all.

If the Ordinary Form is provided, then all the faithful are provided for. You may want the EF, but that comes under the aspect of personal preference not need.

 

[jmj1984]

If the Ordinary Form is provided, then all the faithful are provided for. You may want the EF, but that comes under the aspect of personal preference not need.

Explain that logic please? All the faithful clearly arent provided for if they are petitioning for the TLM.

 

[TrueLight]

If the Ordinary Form is provided, then all the faithful are provided for. You may want the EF, but that comes under the aspect of personal preference not need.

I completely don’t agree with that statement.

Take a look at this quote from *Universae Ecclesiae *especially part b.

1. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church’s Sacred Liturgy.3 The Motu Proprio manifests his solicitude as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church,4 and has the aim of:

a.) offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved;

b.) effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the forma extraordinaria for all who ask for it, given that the use of the 1962 Roman Liturgy is a** faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful **and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees;

c.) promoting reconciliation at the heart of the Church.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yeah, SP basically guarantees the 1962 Form of the Rite for any group who asks for it, if it is at all humanly possible to grant the request.

 

[FAB]

I completely don’t agree with that statement.

Take a look at this quote from *Universae Ecclesiae *especially part b.

c.) promoting reconciliation at the heart of the Church.

Let’s go the opposite direction. I only want the Ordinary Form and only the EF is being offered. Are not my needs of being able to participate in the the sacrifice of the mass being met in the EF. Or should I scream you must to the Ordinary form because interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees;?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yeah, SP basically guarantees the 1962 Form of the Rite for any group who asks for it, if it is at all humanly possible to grant the request.

I would have to say that the use of “any” here is overly generous and not faithful to SP.

But to go with this, is it your understanding that such group does not have the burden of support for the priest and everything else that accompanies the celebration of the EF Mass?

 

[FAB]

Explain that logic please? All the faithful clearly arent provided for if they are petitioning for the TLM.

People can make petitions all day long but are they willing to put out the time, talent and money to follow through. with resources streached in all parishs and diocese, they may just not be available.
The Ordianry From of the mass provides all that is needed for the liturgy and to participate in the sacrafice of the mass. The TLM is extraordianry and perhaps a luxury that many places can’t afford when there are many basic needs that are going un-met.

 

[jmj1984]

Let’s go the opposite direction. I only want the Ordinary Form and only the EF is being offered. Are not my needs of being able to participate in the the sacrifice of the mass being met in the EF. Or should I scream you must to the Ordinary form because interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees;?

Except that you’re never going to be in a situation where only the TLM is offered, so the issue is moot.

 

[jmj1984]

People can make petitions all day long but are they willing to put out the time, talent and money to follow through. with resources streached in all parishs and diocese, they may just not be available.

I don’t know perhaps you should ask them? Rather than make uncharitable presumptions that actually they’re not As for the resources not being available I very much doubt it.

The Ordianry From of the mass provides all that is needed for the liturgy and to participate in the sacrafice of the mass. The TLM is extraordianry and perhaps a luxury that many places can’t afford when there are many basic needs that are going un-met.

Really? Basic needs aren’t being met? I think not, most dioceses in the developed world have more than enough resources to provide at least one TLM for the faithful a month in just one of their parishes.

 

[FAB]

Except that you’re never going to be in a situation where only the TLM is offered, so the issue is moot.

Your avoided the point. If only a TLM were available, my needs as a Catholic are being met by going to it even though I prefer the Ordianry form, which I do.

There are those on this thread that are trying to say that there need as Catholic can only be met with the TLM, that is not the case. The TLM may be a preference, but all they need to fullfill theies faith if in The Ordianary From.

 

[FAB]

Really? Basic needs aren’t being met? I think not, most dioceses in the developed world have more than enough resources to provide at least one TLM for the faithful a month in just one of their parishes.

You would then be wrong. Diocese are laying people off and cutting currently needed programs. There is not the money to spend on buildings vestments, training of preist for what is a distinct minority in the Church. The same goes for parishes.

 

[roadsend]

It is sad to see any archbishop ignoring the instructions of the Holy Father.
If the Ordinary Form is celebrated in his diocese with the same disregard for church teaching and liturgical law as it is in my geographical area, I would exercise my canonical right to attend Orthodox Liturgies or SSPX Masses as often as possible in order to meet my spiritual needs.

 

[TrueLight]

Your avoided the point. If only a TLM were available, my needs as a Catholic are being met by going to it even though I prefer the Ordianry form, which I do.

There are those on this thread that are trying to say that there need as Catholic can only be met with the TLM, that is not the case. The TLM may be a preference, but all they need to fullfill theies faith if in The Ordianary From.

The TLM is not a luxury for me. My needs are met by attending the EF.

That’s all I’m going to say on that as per forum rules.

 

[FAB]

The TLM is not a luxury for me. My needs are met by attending the EF.

That’s all I’m going to say on that as per forum rules.

Interesting. So unless you have all pagentry of the EF, the mass in Latin, the fancy vestment, the incence etc. that you don’t have or can’t feel the presence of Christ? The Eucharist isn’t the body of Christ.

The most profound mass I attend each year is not in a cathedral or even a Church. It is held outside under a basket ball court cover. It is presided by my ordinary and is attended by about 200 juvenile offenders in lock up. The altar is a foldiong table with a cloth over it, the servers are juvinile offenders and cotholics and none all come forward for a blessing in the commuion line.
This ordinary form of the mass meets greater needs than any other mass I even attend. It is Jesus in action, at the last supper, offering His salvation for the sinners most in need.

 

[NewsTheMan]

pagentry of the EF

Imagine if someone said something similarly disparaging and pejorative about the OF

FAB you’re constantly building up strawmen, contradicting yourself and introducing things that are not relevant to the discussion.

Question: Does SP and UE allow the EF for those who seek it?
Answer: Yes, because it is a legitimate Rite of the Roman Catholic Church

That’s all there is to it.