Bishop Banning Latin Mass

[LilyM]

Does the bishop really have the right? My impression was that if the priest is willing and able and there are parishioners who want it, the bishop simply no longer has the authority to stop them. It might be my understanding of the situation is too simplistic though.

Not for so-called ‘private’ Masses, which are a different thing to, say, a public Mass openly advertised in the bulletin of the parish or on it’s website. Article 5 refers to things being done ‘in consultation with the Bishop’, which to my mind means in regards public Masses at least he needs to be involved. Note all the ‘shoulds’ in the first few articles, rather than ‘musts’ or ‘shalls’.

And not permission as such - meaning the Bishop’s no is no longer the final word as it used to be. Doesn’t mean he can’t say no, if he feels there is reason, but he then should refer the matter on to Ecclesia Dei.

 

[choliks]

Does the bishop really have the right? My impression was that if the priest is willing and able and there are parishioners who want it, the bishop simply no longer has the authority to stop them. It might be my understanding of the situation is too simplistic though.

The bishop can stop them if it impedes the ordinary pastoral care of the parish.

 

[TimothyH]

Priests used to have TLMs on the bonnets of army jeeps. John Paul II used to celebrate it on camp with teens, using an upturned kayak as an altar. An altar rail is not required for people to kneel - at Papal Masses two kneelers are simply set up in front of His Holiness. Or the front row of pews can be used if they have kneelers. So no modification to the church is required.

Vestments? I suppose there are some bits and pieces that are used exclusively in the TLM, but even these can be found in storage in many parishes.

Training may be the real concern. Low Masses don’t require a cast of thousands though.

I’ve never been to Thunder Bay but have been to the Arrowhead of Minnesota - God’s country indeed.

I’m assuming even in the wilds of Tunder Bay where outfitters outnumber Catholics, that Jeep hoods and kayaks are not an option.

-Tim-

 

[wasserfall]

If the priest in question is the pastor of the parish, then the bishop has no authority to prevent the pastor from scheduling a public traditional mass.

The priest does need to know a little bit of Latin, if he is willing to learn that little bit of Latin, and learn to celebrate the traditional mass on his own time and his own dime, then the bishop doesn’t have anything to say about it.

 

[choliks]

If the priest in question is the pastor of the parish, then the bishop has no authority to prevent the pastor from scheduling a public traditional mass.

The priest does need to know a little bit of Latin, if he is willing to learn that little bit of Latin, and learn to celebrate the traditional mass on his own time and his own dime, then the bishop doesn’t have anything to say about it.

Actually Article 5 of SP gives the authority to the bishop to stop the celebration of the traditional mass if it impedes the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, particularly if it gave rise to disunity and discord among parishioners.

 

[pnewton]

I think the title is a little off. It doesn’t sound like a Latin Mass is banned as much as it there is simply not one approved where you are. How large is your group that want this Mass?

 

[wasserfall]

Actually Article 5 of SP gives the authority to the bishop to stop the celebration of the traditional mass if it impedes the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, particularly if it gave rise to disunity and discord among parishioners.

Were it to actually give rise to disunity and discord, then the bishop may be able to do this, but he has no authority to prohibit the traditional mass on the theory that it might cause disunity and discord.

And “disunity and discord” sufficient would have to be real disunity and discord, not just a few malcontents muttering about “preconciliar nonsense”.

 

[Moore11]

Is it permissible to go to an SSPX mass? There are two in that diocese.
Other posters: I don’t know if this is good advice, perhaps others could weigh in.

 

[wasserfall]

I think the title is a little off. It doesn’t sound like a Latin Mass is banned as much as it there is simply not one approved where you are. How large is your group that want this Mass?

There is no need for episcopal approval if a parish priest agrees to celebrate the traditional mass in response to a request from his parishioners. And there is no required minimum number of parishioners who desire the traditional mass, other than that it must be a coetus. Two or three should be sufficient.

 

[choliks]

Is it permissible to go to an SSPX mass? There are two in that diocese.
Other posters: I don’t know if this is good advice, perhaps others could weigh in.

This has been discussed in CAF thoroughly. Here’s the latest thread…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=668396

 

[Hunter53]

I suggest trying to have a conversation with the man instead of being confrontational.

I don’t think that accusing the man of being in error and organizing a protest is going to be constructive.

Approaching the Bishop with funding in hand for vestements, impliments and modifications to the Church, a priest who is willing, and a reasonably large and stable group of people who are committed to sticking with the Latin Mass on a long term would probably go a long way toward getting him to see that the idea is viable. He is probably not going to allow it if he feels that it will never get off the ground or that it will start only to wither on the vine.

-Tim-

Are you saying that we need to pay for the privilege of having the mass in latin?

 

[runningdude]

Priests are only supposed to celebrate one mass a day. Two or Three masses is a widely used exception used because of priestly shortages.

Be kind to your bishop, and assume he’s only trying to look out for the welfare of his priest by not overworking him - not adding a Latin mass to his regularly scheduled masses.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Hi, as most of you know I go to St.Peters in the Diocese of Thunder Bay. Anyway, I recently emailed the bishop and told him of peoples interest including myself of the spiritual need to have a latin mass. He told me he is refusing to allow us to celebrate the latin mass because he does not believe it is needed, and our priest doesnt know latin. Its true Father Terry doesnt know latin but he is willing to learn and wants to start a latin mass chapter in our diocese. However, our bishop is putting a stop to this. What can I do im asking all those here that know the beauty of the latin mass to write him in protest. Perhaps then he will see the error of his ways. God bless Mary

I think your title is misleading and unfair. From your own words, your Bishop does not think having Mass in Latin is a practical thing. That does not constitute his banning it.
As a practical matter, although Latin is still taught in US Catholic Seminaries, it has been almost 50 years since a fluency in Latin was required for graduation. And, like any other language, if one doesn’t use Latin regularly, it is soon forgotten.
As a boy in a Jesuit parochial school, way before V II, I studied Latin for 9 years. As an altar boy, I was fluent enough that I knew what every prayer in the Mass meant in English, and I could read and understand the Gospel and Epistles in Latin. However today, after so many years of not using it, the memory of it has faded.
The sad fact is, that as we get older, the ability to learn or even to re-learn a language is very difficult. This, despite your Priests willingness to learn Latin, could be part of the reason for your Bishop’s decision.

 

[pnewton]

. And there is no required minimum number of parishioners who desire the traditional mass, other than that it must be a coetus. Two or three should be sufficient.

Summorum Pontificum
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16summorumpontificum.htm

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.

The bishop may or may not be “right” in this. I sure do not know. But he is authoritatitive.

 

[triumphguy]

So you need a stable group first.

Maybe start out with some regular prayer services in Latin first and see if you can build a group.

 

[wasserfall]

Summorum Pontificum
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16summorumpontificum.htm

So you need a stable group first.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html

15. A coetus fidelium (“group of the faithful”) can be said to be stabiliter existens (“existing in a stable manner”), according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, when it is constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even after the publication of the Motu Proprio, come together by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel; such a coetus (“group”) can also be composed of persons coming from different parishes or dioceses, who gather together in a specific parish church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose.

Two or three people belonging to a parish who come together to ask that the traditional mass be celebrated in their parish is a “stable group” in the sense of Summorum Pontificum.

The original poster used the plural in her post, implying that she is not alone in her desire in her parish and, thus, a “stable group” in the sense of Summorum Pontificum exists.

Given a stable group and a willing pastor, the bishop has no authority to prohibit the traditional mass in the parish.

 

[pnewton]

Two or three people belonging to a parish who come together to ask that the traditional mass be celebrated in their parish is a “stable group” in the sense of Summorum Pontificum.

The original poster used the plural in her post, implying that she is not alone in her desire in her parish and, thus, a “stable group” in the sense of Summorum Pontificum exists.

I note two things. First, your quote does not say two or three. Second, it does not define stable as you do. So the enumeration and the definition are yours, when they properly belong to the bishop.

The document does not define, has never defined and will likely never define the rights of two or three. That would be absurd to think that a bishop must make arrangements for two or three people. The Catholic Church is not absurd, nor is the ratio of priests so great as to allow such accommodations.

Again, I do not know this bishop’s motive, but he is acting within his authority. Let us not make up impossible rules and goals that aren’t in the document. Wishful thinking will not prove practical to the OP.

 

[pnewton]

So you need a stable group first.

Maybe start out with some regular prayer services in Latin first and see if you can build a group.

In addition, if such a group could start collecting funds for supporting such a Mass, it would help establish them as stable.

 

[wasserfall]

I note two things. First, your quote does not say two or three. Second, it does not define stable as you do. So the enumeration and the definition are yours, when they properly belong to the bishop.

Universae Ecclesiae says specifically, as I quoted above: A coetus fidelium (“group of the faithful”) can be said to be stabiliter existens (“existing in a stable manner”), according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, when it is constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even after the publication of the Motu Proprio, come together by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel.

This is the definition of a stable group. A stable group is 1) some people of a parish who 2) come together to ask for the traditional mass. That’s what the document says. Here it is again, somewhat abbreviated:

A group of the faithful can be said to be existing in a stable manner * when it is constituted by some people of a parish who come together by reason of their veneration for the [traditional mass] and ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church.

From the statements made in the original post, a stable group in the sense of Summorum Pontificum exists in her parish.

The document does not define, has never defined and will likely never define the rights of two or three.

Two or three people make a group. Two or three people qualify as “some people of an individual parish”. That’s all that is required.

That would be absurd to think that a bishop must make arrangements for two or three people. The Catholic Church is not absurd, nor is the ratio of priests so great as to allow such accommodations.

You are entirely missing the point that the bishop has no need to make arrangements because there is a willing pastor. It is true that if a small group that did not have a willing pastor started making demands for a traditional mass, then the bishop has no obligation to try to force a priest to celebrate the mass. But when there is a willing pastor, there is no need for the bishop to arrange or accommodate anything.

Again, I do not know this bishop’s motive, but he is acting within his authority.

Assuming there is a group in the parish who is asking for a traditional mass and assuming the pastor of the parish is willing to celebrate it, then the bishop has no absolutely no authority to forbid it.*

 

[LilyM]

Universae Ecclesiae says specifically, as I quoted above: A coetus fidelium (“group of the faithful”) can be said to be stabiliter existens (“existing in a stable manner”), according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, when it is constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even after the publication of the Motu Proprio, come together by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel.

This is the definition of a stable group. A stable group is 1) some people of a parish who 2) come together to ask for the traditional mass. That’s what the document says. Here it is again, somewhat abbreviated:

A group of the faithful can be said to be existing in a stable manner * when it is constituted by some people of a parish who come together by reason of their veneration for the [traditional mass] and ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church.*

From the statements made in the original post, a stable group in the sense of Summorum Pontificum exists in her parish

Two or three people make a group. Two or three people qualify as “some people of an individual parish”. That’s all that is required

You are entirely missing the point that the bishop has no need to make arrangements because there is a willing pastor. It is true that if a small group that did not have a willing pastor started making demands for a traditional mass, then the bishop has no obligation to try to force a priest to celebrate the mass. But when there is a willing pastor, there is no need for the bishop to arrange or accommodate anything

Assuming there is a group in the parish who is asking for a traditional mass and assuming the pastor of the parish is willing to celebrate it, then the bishop has no absolutely no authority to forbid it.

The bishop has to coordinate the liturgical needs of the diocese as a whole. We do not know all the circumastances and must allow the Bishop to be the judge

As a general rule, priests are limited by Canon Law to saying one Mass, of any kind, per day, including Sundays. In many dioceses priests are already overstretched and of necessity have to be permitted to say 3 or even more Masses on a Sunday, and traveling considerable distances between those Masses too. This priest may well be one of those.

This in and of itself is an extremely undesirable state of things, regardless of how willing the priests may be to say extra Masses.

It doesn’t allow much time for the priest’s other duties - hearing confessions, taking communion to the housebound or hospitals, giving last rites to the sick. Very importantly too, it doesn’t allow for the priest to devote much time, as he should, to his own prayer life and make his Sabbath the true day of rest which it should be for everyone, including priests.

Priests are as susceptible to burnout as anyone, possibly more so, and care needs to be taken that they do not overexert themselves. Then too, they are expected to be and are usually incredIbly generous with time and effort, and often at risk of being too much so.

Now imagine a priest already saying 3 or 4 Masses on a Sunday, in who knows what far-flung parishes, who is perhaps not young or in the best of health, who goodheartedly wants to add yet a heavier burden to an already hectic workload in the study and saying of an additional Latin Mass!

Of course the bishop is rightly entitled to think first and foremost of the needs of the vast majority of his flock, who may not wish to attend nor would benefit from an additional Latin Mass. As well as the very real need for the priest not to exert himself beyond his strength and health. And so may be within his rights to say no to the extra Mass.