Bishop Banning Latin Mass

[Opie90]

However, we want to be very careful how we say this. The preservation of the Latin language is not the function of the mass. Latin is used in the mass, because it is the official language of the Latin Church.

Do you see what I mean? We have to be very careful to avoid implying that Latin must be used at mass in order to keep it alive. That is not in the mind of the Church. Latin is used at mass, because it is the language of the Church; therefore, it has the place of primacy.

We have to understand the meaning of the word “primacy” as the Church uses it, not as Webster uses it. For the Church, the expression means that Latin is the first choice, not the only choice. Therefore, it does not mean that it must be used. It means that when you have an option between Latin and other languages, you should give primary consideration to Latin. That is the preferred language, not the mandatory language.

Many people set themselves up for frustration, because they assume that because it is the official language of the Church, it must be used. When it is not, they get frustrated.

Those of us who are in positions where we must use Latin, find it frustrating and enjoyable at the same time. It is enjoyable to work in another language. It’s also frustrating to try to recover it. When the secretary on the council first told me that a letter that I was writing had to be written in Latin my immediate reaction was, “I had enough Latin in the seminary to last me a lifetime. You’re kidding me, right?”

Here was the irony. I sat down with Brother’s help to compose this letter in Latin. After I finished it, I said to Brother, “Please send this,” to which he responded, “You have to send the English translation with it.” :banghead: So, I had to take my letter and translate it into English, because the recipient does not read Latin. WHY DID I WRITE IT IN LATIN IN THE FIRST PLACE??? The answer was, “It’s a custom.” In my mind, it’s a pretty dumb custom if I have to send the English translation along with the Latin master. I know that the recipient is going to read the English and file the Latin copy.

To to many of us who are clergy and religious the Latin question becomes more of an issue of satisfying the preference of some people than a real need. That’s what triggers the resistance to go back and relearn Latin. Unless you’re really interested in celebrating mass in the Extraordinary Form, you will no need to relearn the language.

Of course, that triggers the next question. Is mass in the EF necessary? It’s no more necessary then writing something in Latin only to send the English translation with it. That seals it for most priests. To many priests setting up a soup kitchen, a good CCD program, balancing the parish budget, spending time in community are far more important than mass in the Extraordinary Form. They’re not going to take time away from these other priorities to study Latin again. The younger men coming out of the seminary are more likely to do it, because the Latin and the form are fresh in their minds.

While there is a side of many priests that wants to make their people happy, there is also a side that says, “Can’t I make them happy with a beautiful OF mass, which is less difficult?” It’s a very human response.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Brother JR, why is it so difficult to celebrate the Extraordinary Form now compared to when it was the only mass celebrated? Is it just that the Priests don’t really know Latin anymore (as you said above), or is there more to it?

I find Latin very beautiful and it seems to fit what is going on in the mass so perfectly. (I actually speak from the experience of listening to OF in Latin on EWTN, seeing the EF on youtube,and from listening to Gregorian chant. I haven’t made it to a Latin OF or an EF yet. But I hope to soon!) I confess I have a hard time understanding why anyone would/did want to stop celebrating the EF, or would not want to celebrate the OF in Latin.

When I heard the OF in Latin on EWTN for the first time and there was a deep level on which I understood what was going on even though I didn’t know Latin and had never been to or heard a mass before. I felt like the responses came from the deepest part of who I was.

I have been Catholic a month. What advice do you have for someone like me, for whom Latin is inextricably linked to the Catholic Tradition, and to whom English (and particularly the music style - using Protestant worship songs at benediction for example.) feels like a departure from it. For whom pre-vatican II theologians and traditional Catholic spirituality was a big part of my conversion, and who often feels like people slight this longstanding well-spring of practice and theology as if it is outdated and irrelevant.

I do not want to be arrogant, I certainly don’t want to set myself up as a judge. I really like my Parish. I just feel a little “out of sync”.

 

[utah_rose]

I think the problem in general now is disunity among the Bishops. Yes, we must pray for them, but for a Bishop to refuse to have the Latin Mass said because he dislikes it, despite a priest willing to learn Latin and obtaining the necessary vestments, etc. is sadly enough a throwback to the sixties when many Bishops petitioned Rome that they did not agree with Humana Vitae, the encyclical written by the Pope. From then on, there was disarray in the Church.

With a shortage of priests now, and a lot of refugees speaking many languages and not familiar with English, wouldn’t it be common sense to have the Latin Masses where everyone must learn (the Missals have the English translation also). It seems there could be more unity and reverence from this.

Yes, the priests would have to learn Latin but it could be incremented gradually, and still have the OP Masses available. After all, many of the priests now must learn Spanish, so Latin couldn’t be that difficult.

Perhaps the upheaval in the Church is partly due to some of the Bishops now. We must all pray for them, because if there’s disunity among them, what hope does the priests and laity have?

 

[Moore11]

While it is possible that you are right, we really should be charitable in assigning motives to others, especially if that other is a bishop. I do not think anyone has ever said that the Latin needs to be known perfectly, or even better than Spanish is known for Spanish Masses. I am not convinced there is a double standard, much less some nefarious motive. We can never go wrong by assuming the best in others.

What is frustrating from some aspects is that people can come out and say, “well some bishops in the 60s and 70s were not “educated” right, and a spirit of the 60s kind of caught the Church off guard.” Almost everyone will agree that SOME Bishops got caught up in that. But once someone says a Bishop may not want the TLM and will do things to make sure it doesnt happen we all of the sudden put on our candyland glasses and call it charity when we say that this does not happen anymore.

 

[TimothyH]

What is frustrating from some aspects is that people can come out and say, “well some bishops in the 60s and 70s were not “educated” right, and a spirit of the 60s kind of caught the Church off guard.” Almost everyone will agree that SOME Bishops got caught up in that. But once someone says a Bishop may not want the TLM and will do things to make sure it doesnt happen we all of the sudden put on our candyland glasses and call it charity when we say that this does not happen anymore.

Maybe that is going on, and I’m sure it has, but charity is one of the three theological virtues.

The theological virtues “dispose Christians to live in a relationship with the Holy Trinity” and make us “capable of acting as his [God’s] children and of meriting eternal life.”

The theological virtue of charity is the greates virtue. 1 Corinthians 13:13 comes to mind.

When it comes to questioning the motives of a sucessor to the apostles, personally, I’m not going there. For me it’s not a matter of candyland glasses, but of my salvation.

-Tim-

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Maybe that is going on, and I’m sure it has, but charity is one of the three theological virtues.

I don’t want to get into the details of this specific argument, but I do want to say that sometimes charity is interpreted incorrectly as simply “being nice.” Christ was always 100% charitable, and yet He said and did things that do not fit into our modern definition of “nice,” such as the scene in the temple with the money-changers, terms He used to describe the pharisees, cursing the fig tree, etc. I simply bring this up because sometimes a false sense of charity is used to discourage people from speaking the truth.

• PAX

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t want to get into the details of this specific argument, but I do want to say that sometimes charity is interpreted incorrectly as simply “being nice.” Christ was always 100% charitable, and yet He said and did things that do not fit into our modern definition of “nice,” such as the scene in the temple with the money-changers, terms He used to describe the pharisees, cursing the fig tree, etc. I simply bring this up because sometimes a false sense of charity is used to discourage people from speaking the truth.

• PAX

While it is true that charity is not the same as being nice or not offending others it is hardly charitable to assume that a bishop is biased against the EF simply because he has not allwed it in his diocese. As has been pointed out there are other reasons for this besides being biased against the EF. So unless you actually know all of the reasons for the decision the Bishop made it still seems uncharitable to assume that a particular bishop is ‘anti’ EF.

 

[Moore11]

Maybe that is going on, and I’m sure it has, but charity is one of the three theological virtues.

The theological virtues “dispose Christians to live in a relationship with the Holy Trinity” and make us “capable of acting as his [God’s] children and of meriting eternal life.”

The theological virtue of charity is the greates virtue. 1 Corinthians 13:13 comes to mind.

When it comes to questioning the motives of a sucessor to the apostles, personally, I’m not going there. For me it’s not a matter of candyland glasses, but of my salvation.

-Tim-

All that goes out the window with the sex scandal. We, as a laity, judged successors to the apostles. Rightly. How does your personal application of Charity deal with that situation? Surely the commissions and diocese committees (with some regular lay people on them) “questioned the motives” of those Bishops. You may wish to not question the motives on this particular subject. And that is fine. But to blanket the position with the idea that charity assumes we never question Bishops is foolish and dangerous.

 

[Moore11]

While it is true that charity is not the same as being nice or not offending others it is hardly charitable to assume that a bishop is biased against the EF simply because he has not allwed it in his diocese. As has been pointed out there are other reasons for this besides being biased against the EF. So unless you actually know all of the reasons for the decision the Bishop made it still seems uncharitable to assume that a particular bishop is ‘anti’ EF.

Yes, I agree, but you must understand: The reasons are not being given in some diocese and actions are being taken (like in my diocese) that become hard to interpret any other way. Especially if the Bishop has a more “progressive” tilt that is known to his flock.
Our Bishop is 2 years away from retirement and may not want to fight this battle.
When we write our Bishop and he states there is not a sufficient number of people to justify a TLM and the SSPX chapel 20 miles away is packed, then there is some sort of communication disconnect.

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t want to get into the details of this specific argument, but I do want to say that sometimes charity is interpreted incorrectly as simply “being nice.” Christ was always 100% charitable, and yet He said and did things that do not fit into our modern definition of “nice,” such as the scene in the temple with the money-changers, terms He used to describe the pharisees, cursing the fig tree, etc. I simply bring this up because sometimes a false sense of charity is used to discourage people from speaking the truth.

• PAX

Charity is love.

Christ replaced the authority of Moses under which the leadership of Israel operated with a new authority, his Church, under which Apostles and their successors operate. Christ replaced the Chair of Moses with the Chair of Peter. Christ has the right to do so because Christ is God.

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. (Matthew 23:1-3)

But even as he preached condemnation and woe on the corrupt authority, he told his disciples to obey that authority, because their authority was legitimate - their authority was from God. As successors to the Apostles, the Bishops have legitimate authority, and that authority also comes from God.

Christ is God, and he alone has the right to do those things. We however are not God, and so we are to “Do and observe all things whatsoever they tell us”, and if a Bishop is corrupt and treats us unfairly, we are to “Not follow their example.” That is charity.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

All that goes out the window with the sex scandal. We, as a laity, judged successors to the apostles. Rightly. How does your personal application of Charity deal with that situation? Surely the commissions and diocese committees (with some regular lay people on them) “questioned the motives” of those Bishops. You may wish to not question the motives on this particular subject. And that is fine. But to blanket the position with the idea that charity assumes we never question Bishops is foolish and dangerous.

I’m sorry. I should have been more specific. I was talking about questioning the motives of a bishop with regards to promoting or not promoting the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

I have no idea about lay commissions judging Bishops. This is the first time I have every heard of such a thing. I’m sure if we were asked to participate in such a commission, both of us would think long and hard about it. I know I would, and I would like to believe that such a commission and its members operate on the charitable principal that we don’t assume a motive until it is proven. I’d be sad if it was simply a vendetta of some kind.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, why is it so difficult to celebrate the Extraordinary Form now compared to when it was the only mass celebrated? Is it just that the Priests don’t really know Latin anymore (as you said above), or is there more to it?

I believe that many things play into it. Certainly, culture plays into it. Americans are not fond of learning languages to begin with. We’re one of the few countries left that is predominantly monolingual… I believe it’s a carryover from our English roots. In my travels, I’ve noticed that the former English colonies are among the few countries in the world where people don’t speak two or more languages.

When there was no option, you came out of the seminary, with the Latin fresh in your head and you went right into it. Actually, you used it in the seminary, because the LOTH was in Latin, unless you belonged to a religious community. They had their own system. That’s not the case anymore. Diocesan seminaries no longer pray the LOTH in Latin and religious houses of formation pray it in the language of the superior. He decides what he likes and you go with it. The exposure is limited to the classroom.

In other situations, such as the Franciscans, there is an awareness that the Ordinary Form can be celebrated in Latin or in hybrid very beautifully. Superiors don’t grant blanket permission to celebrate the EF in for the community or the general public, when you have a mass that can be used that pleases the superior when it’s well done. This is true of many religious communities.

There is also a mindset among some bishops and religious superiors that they need to fix the OF, before going off into the EF, because the OF is the ordinary form or the norm. Some feel that it’s silly to have a mass that is extraordinary and not work on the normative one.

I also believe that the Traditionalist movement has triggered a negative reaction on the part of some bishops and religious superiors that will take time to heal. The priests of the SSPX, especially, were very rude and often nasty to the bishop. Not only in general comments, but in letters that they addressed to individual bishops and unfortunately, some laity joined in the nastiness. Bishops are like any other human being. If you challenge their authority, some will sit down and dialogue with you, but some will run you over. It’s not the best reaction (to run over those who challenge), but it’s a very human reaction.

There is a serious question on the part of many priests and religious about how many people love the form more than they love the practice of virtue, just reading the way that people write and speak on forums and blogs. It’s often lacking in virtue, in the name of the form.

Then then there are remnants of the 1960s who believe that a dead language should be allowed to remain dead. That’s not many, to be honest. I disagree with that position. But I have to admit that in all of my years dealing with bishops, I have never met one of those. I’ve only heard people say that they have.

 

[JReducation]

I have been Catholic a month. What advice do you have for someone like me, for whom Latin is inextricably linked to the Catholic Tradition, and to whom English (and particularly the music style - using Protestant worship songs at benediction for example.) feels like a departure from it. For whom pre-vatican II theologians and traditional Catholic spirituality was a big part of my conversion, and who often feels like people slight this longstanding well-spring of practice and theology as if it is outdated and irrelevant.

I do not want to be arrogant, I certainly don’t want to set myself up as a judge. I really like my Parish. I just feel a little “out of sync”.

I would factor in a few things.

1. Much of what has been borrowed from Protestantism is good. The belief that anything that is Protestant or smells Protestant is wrong, is ignorant. The Protestant community is no longer that little group of rebellious heretics running around the woods in Europe. It has made significant contributions to the world and to the spiritual life of people, especially in the areas of music and exegesis. We have to acknowledge what is good. We don’t have to like it. But we can’t dismiss it either.
2. We have to work on a hollistic view of Catholicism. Catholicism is not just what happened before Vatican II. In SP and UE the Holy Father said that the Ordinary Form of the mass does not break with tradition. It’s another expression of tradition. He takes Bl. John Paul’s correction to heart. At one point he has said that there was a break and Bl. John Paul corrected him on that. Now we see him repeating and embelleshing what John Paul taught. What I’m saying is that you want to see it all as one long continuum. In a continuum, there are going to be variations on the accidental, but not on the essential. That’s what’s happened.
3. I would suggest that you go back and look at some of the reforms through history and some of the variations on those reforms. This is not the first time that we have reforms and it’s not the first time that we have people in authority who put their foot down and disagree with the Vatican. The Vatican has always tried to accommodate those bishops and religious superiors who felt strongly about liturgy. Pope Pius V accommodated to the Franciscans when he made Gregorian chant mandatory. Someone pointed out to him that the statutes of St. Dominic prohibited the Dominicans from ever contradicting the Franciscans and Dominic commanded that they protect the Franciscans and see no wrong in them. Pius upheld Francis and Clares ruling that Gregorian Chant was not to be used by Franciscans without the permission of the superior. The Church upheld the Jesuit General Congress when it argued that the liturgy in Asia had to be Asian, not European. I’m saying is something that Pope Benedict says a lot. Learn to think with the Church. If the Church makes exceptions and bends, we must do so with as much grace as she does. It’s part of our communion with her.

I think the problem in general now is disunity among the Bishops.

by all means, please pray for the bishops. I will point out that the bishops are more unified today, than ever before in history. They are much more unified and work on many projects collaboratively. The liturgy is one of those that they do not have collaborate. Each bishop is the highest liturgist in his diocese.

With a shortage of priests now, and a lot of refugees speaking many languages and not familiar with English, wouldn’t it be common sense to have the Latin Masses where everyone must learn (the Missals have the English translation also). It seems there could be more unity and reverence from this.

This certainly would be practical.

After all, many of the priests now must learn Spanish, so Latin couldn’t be that difficult.

But this is voluntary, even among religious.

Perhaps the upheaval in the Church is partly due to some of the Bishops now. We must all pray for them, because if there’s disunity among them, what hope does the priests and laity have?

I think that we have to open our vision. We’re focusing only on what the bishops say and do regarding the EF and not seeing all of the good that they say and do for the Church. By narrowing our vision to one subject, it is too tempting to villainize them. I know several very holy bishops who have done nothing to push the EF, but have spend long days and millions of dollars helping refugees from Haiti, praying outside of abortion mills, supporting the pro-life ministry in their dioceses, bringing new religious communities to their diocese, finding funds to keep their seminaries running. taking care of older priests who have no place to go, grappling with budget problems, providing care for the sick and dying, providing assistance to the missions, reforming their religious education programs and their diocesan schools. These guys get thrown under the bus by Traddom, because they don’t put the EF at the top of their list or because they demand that their priests attend to this things first, before going off to take Latin courses or attend a workshop on the EF.

We have to pay attention to the many things that our bishops do for the Church, not only what they do or don’t do for the EF. If we narrow our attention to just that, we risk narrowing our vision of Catholicism to the EF. That’s when you get the Sunday Catholic.

Thee are bishops who are unreasonable, but there are far more who are very reasonable when they postpone the EF. They have many things on their plate and few resources.

We need to pray for our bishops, but not just pray that they institute the EF, but also pray that God will help them in the challenges that they face, either personal or pastoral.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Moore11]

Charity is love.

Christ replaced the authority of Moses under which the leadership of Israel operated with a new authority, his Church, under which Apostles and their successors operate. Christ replaced the Chair of Moses with the Chair of Peter. Christ has the right to do so because Christ is God.

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. (Matthew 23:1-3)

But even as he preached condemnation and woe on the corrupt authority, he told his disciples to obey that authority, because their authority was legitimate - their authority was from God. As successors to the Apostles, the Bishops have legitimate authority, and that authority also comes from God.

Christ is God, and he alone has the right to do those things. We however are not God, and so we are to “Do and observe all things whatsoever they tell us”, and if a Bishop is corrupt and treats us unfairly, we are to “Not follow their example.” That is charity.

-Tim-

I can concede all of that. I believe it. But, no where does it say not to question them, nor does it talk of when they tell us wrongly. A single Bishop is not infallible and certainly we can agree that many Bishops throughout the history of the Church and even in the modern Church are and have been scandalous. We are to be obedient, yes! By your citation here we should just discard things like the scandal, not be involved in fact finding or judgement. Which we can all agree we are! The point of the above citation in its most simplistic is to take the good and leave the bad. But the problem is that we have to discern what is good and what is bad. And to do that we have to question, learn, and judge.
If a guy is seen running from a bank with a ski mask and a bag of money and a gun are we to apply Charity to the point of foolishness and assume he is saving the money from a bank that caught fire, even though there is no smoke? No, Charity is love, and love is Holy, but foolishness is unholy. Sometimes the line is fine. I Charitably believe that my Bishop has some kind of reason for his resistance. It does not change the reality and frustration of living with the situation with insufficient or no reasons given. (which is his right) He doesn’t have to justify himself to me or any other laity. But it just seems prudent and illogical to not offer a reason that might stem the frustration and speculation of His flock.
We are called to be obedient and I intend to be. This subject is not life or death, it isn’t all that important. The Bishop is not telling us to sin. There is every reason to obey. But there is also every reason to be frustrated.

Priests who want to say the TLM
People who want to go to the TLM
Masses in English Portuguese, African, Basque, Polish, Spanish, some of which have a smaller “audience” than a TLM would.
A TLM offered by a FSSP Priest 5 hours and hundreds of miles away from the population in a rural outpost. (this to satisfy The MP)
Priests saying 3 or 4 Masses on a Sunday to half empty Churches.
Almost every parish has a designated Mass for “teens”
A full SSPX nearby along with many people like me who do not attend out of obedience.

If charity is anything like “reasonable doubt” it is getting harder and harder to squeeze through that door. But squeeze we must, through the narrow door and eye of a needle.
I just need a little empathy about the situation sometimes.

 

[TrueLight]

At one point he has said that there was a break and Bl. John Paul corrected him on that.

Hmm. But was he right the first time?

 

[Moore11]

I’m sorry. I should have been more specific. I was talking about questioning the motives of a bishop with regards to promoting or not promoting the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

I have no idea about lay commissions judging Bishops. This is the first time I have every heard of such a thing. I’m sure if we were asked to participate in such a commission, both of us would think long and hard about it. I know I would, and I would like to believe that such a commission and its members operate on the charitable principal that we don’t assume a motive until it is proven. I’d be sad if it was simply a vendetta of some kind.

-Tim-

Really!? You would have to think long and hard about being on a commission or diocese watch-group for the safeguards and accountability of our priests and Bishops following the scandal?
I wouldn’t.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, I agree, but you must understand: The reasons are not being given in some diocese and actions are being taken (like in my diocese) that become hard to interpret any other way. Especially if the Bishop has a more “progressive” tilt that is known to his flock.
Our Bishop is 2 years away from retirement and may not want to fight this battle.
When we write our Bishop and he states there is not a sufficient number of people to justify a TLM and the SSPX chapel 20 miles away is packed, then there is some sort of communication disconnect.

If the reasons are not being given then the faithful must do their very best to not assume that it comes from a desire to repress the EF, no matter how tempting it can be to assume that. That is my point. Yes it can be difficult, but should we not instead offer up these sufferings as a part of our cross that is given to us directly by Christ? Yes, you can try to change things, but one should always try to do so in the most charitable way possible, and so avoid actions and words which will lead others to view your bishops and pastors in an uncharitable light. Just because a particular bishop has a “progressive tilt” does not necessarily mean that he is ‘anti EF’ or ‘anti tradition’. Assume the best, pray that you will gain access to the Mass of your preference, and offer up the lack of such a preference for the conversion of sinners.

 

[JReducation]

I can concede all of that. I believe it. But, no where does it say not to question them, nor does it talk of when they tell us wrongly. A single Bishop is not infallible and certainly we can agree that many Bishops throughout the history of the Church and even in the modern Church are and have been scandalous. We are to be obedient, yes! By your citation here we should just discard things like the scandal, not be involved in fact finding or judgement. Which we can all agree we are! The point of the above citation in its most simplistic is to take the good and leave the bad. But the problem is that we have to discern what is good and what is bad. And to do that we have to question, learn, and judge.
If a guy is seen running from a bank with a ski mask and a bag of money and a gun are we to apply Charity to the point of foolishness and assume he is saving the money from a bank that caught fire, even though there is no smoke? No, Charity is love, and love is Holy, but foolishness is unholy. Sometimes the line is fine. I Charitably believe that my Bishop has some kind of reason for his resistance. It does not change the reality and frustration of living with the situation with insufficient or no reasons given. (which is his right) He doesn’t have to justify himself to me or any other laity. But it just seems prudent and illogical to not offer a reason that might stem the frustration and speculation of His flock.
We are called to be obedient and I intend to be. This subject is not life or death, it isn’t all that important. The Bishop is not telling us to sin. There is every reason to obey. But there is also every reason to be frustrated.

Priests who want to say the TLM
People who want to go to the TLM
Masses in English Portuguese, African, Basque, Polish, Spanish, some of which have a smaller “audience” than a TLM would.
A TLM offered by a FSSP Priest 5 hours and hundreds of miles away from the population in a rural outpost. (this to satisfy The MP)
Priests saying 3 or 4 Masses on a Sunday to half empty Churches.
Almost every parish has a designated Mass for “teens”
A full SSPX nearby along with many people like me who do not attend out of obedience.

If charity is anything like “reasonable doubt” it is getting harder and harder to squeeze through that door. But squeeze we must, through the narrow door and eye of a needle.
I just need a little empathy about the situation sometimes.

This takes us back to the OP. The problem here is with the term “question”.

The faithful (clergy, religious and laity) certainly have the right to ask questions and authority the obligation to provide answers. This can be questions about the liturgy or questions about the handling of something as serious as the sex abuse issue.

Questioning the bishop is not the same as asking a question. This the law does not allow for. Questioning is putting his motives, his integrity, his honesty and his on trial by those who have no right to do so. Only his superiors can put him under the microscope.

I believe that people confuse the two concepts. When they do, they come across as entitled.

There is nothing wrong in asking why something was done or not done. It’s just a question. It’s not putting the other person on trial.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I don’t have to try to guess at the intentions of my Bishop. He has openly stated his opposition to all things traditional on multiple occasions. An incredibly devout and holy family who are friends of mine went to ask him about offering the EF. He flat out told them “over my dead body.”

I could create a litany of what he allows and what he denies in the diocese to show his hostility, but what would that accomplish? But he is 75 now so we are all praying for a holy and orthodox Bishop to replace him.

Some of you posters need to realize that there are those of us who are living in dioceses that are spiritual deserts, where the Catholic Faith is watered down and warped, where reverent Masses are hard to find, where temporal social justice is more important than eternal salvation, where heresy is allowed to be preached from the pulpit of the Cathedral, and on, and on. It is a frustrating experience indeed.

• PAX

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t have to try to guess at the intentions of my Bishop. He has openly stated his opposition to all things traditional on multiple occasions. An incredibly devout and holy family who are friends of mine went to ask him about offering the EF. He flat out told them “over my dead body.”

I could create a litany of what he allows and what he denies in the diocese to show his hostility, but what would that accomplish? But he is 75 now so we are all praying for a holy and orthodox Bishop to replace him.

Some of you posters need to realize that there are those of us who are living in dioceses that are spiritual deserts, where the Catholic Faith is watered down and warped, where reverent Masses are hard to find, where temporal social justice is more important than eternal salvation, where heresy is allowed to be preached from the pulpit of the Cathedral, and on, and on. It is a frustrating experience indeed.

• PAX

Yes, and I understand that this is a very very hard situation to be stuck in, and it is only natural and human to want to vent about such things, and to judge those who are the cause of it. But Christ calls all of us to take up our cross and follow Him daily. Attacking the bishop can lead to an unrest among the faithful and disrespect for the authority the Bishop holds because of his position, and the respect he deserves because of the office he holds. Remember the words of Jesus to Pilate, You would not have power over me if it had not been given to you from above. God has placed you under the care of this bishop, and it seems as though this is the particular cross that Christ is calling you to carry. It is hard, and only human to find it hard to accept our crosses, but breeding resentment and a lack of respect for the bishop, and so the office that he holds is not what Christ would want us to do. I know it can be hard to hear this from others who do not have the same cross as you. But rest assured that each person has their own personalized cross to bear. I will say a prayer for you and your diocese. You have my sympathy.

 

[Melchior_1]

Some of you posters need to realize that there are those of us who are living in dioceses that are spiritual deserts, where the Catholic Faith is watered down and warped, where reverent Masses are hard to find, where temporal social justice is more important than eternal salvation, where heresy is allowed to be preached from the pulpit of the Cathedral, and on, and on. It is a frustrating experience indeed.

• PAX

It’s also frustrating when on one hand we have people who tout adherence to traditional practices, yet the same people advocate breaking Canon Law, decry the established methods used by the East and elements in the West, and going down the roads of “the ends justify the means”. The people who are like this fall in the middle; unhappy with traditionalists who do the above, and also unhappy with heterodox practices.

Really, those are the people that can’t win.

Not everyone lives in a rockin’ diocese, you’re right. But the key when handling these things is to, ironically, hold fast to Tradition and tradition. Not just any smaller-case tradition, but the practice and example set forth by Holy Fathers Francis and Dominic. They did not break free from the Church, they did not break Canon Law. They affected change within the confines of the Church, and we reap the benefits of that today.

The ends never justify the means, and this case is no different.