Bishop Banning Latin Mass

[pnewton]

Don’t waste time trying to argue with a bishop, play a numbers game with parishioners (“stable group” was removed from the final language, wasn’t it?

No, it wasn’t

In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition…

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16summorumpontificum.htm

The instructions of the Holy See in matters where the Bishop refuses to comply with Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum are to refer the matter DIRECTLY to Ecclesia Dei

. Rather, it is you who are misquoting. The word “directly” does not appear, nor is there any provision where the lay people are empowered to do this.

The document mentions where the faithful can take the matter to the bishop if they do not get satisfaction from the priest, but no where does it refer to any sort of appeal or process for going over the bishop’s authority. Not there. Never will be. Such things are counter the role of a bishop. The Church is not a democracy.

 

[triumphguy]

The Bishop is the direct descendant of the Apostles in the diocese.

He’s not some flunky who is supposed to do things our way.

Nor is he a middle manager with a supervisor that we can can complain to.

Nor are the faithful members of a trade union.

We don’t get to vote on what the bishop does.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Don’t waste time trying to argue with a bishop, play a numbers game with parishioners (“stable group” was removed from the final language, wasn’t it? But even so, it is NOT the bishop who defines “stable”), get a petition or any other such wasted efforts that will yield only acrimony.

The instructions of the Holy See in matters where the Bishop refuses to comply with Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum are to refer the matter DIRECTLY to Ecclesia Dei. Outline the facts, the case, the people and priest interested, and include copies of the bishops letter declining (which he has no authority to do).

In the meantime in anticipation of your success, send the priest to one of those courses in the EF, they are offered by the FSSP or some such. Then the bishops lame excuses about Latin or “priest can’t do it” won’t hold water.

A priest can’t be sent to a class they way you’d send an employee to a skills course. The priest works for the bishop, not the laity and has promised to obey the bishop, which includes not wondering off to take classes and leave his parish unattended.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

The Bishop is the direct descendant of the Apostles in the diocese.

He’s not some flunky who is supposed to do things our way.

Nor is he a middle manager with a supervisor that we can can complain to.

Nor are the faithful members of a trade union.

We don’t get to vote on what the bishop does.

Amen!

 

[TimothyH]

Br JR, you’re probably right. Yet so many priests through the last 30-40 years have had to resort to some kind of illegitimate status (FSSPX, independent chapels, private homes, etc.) and risk health benefits, etc. to say the Traditional Latin Mass. With all the accusations of schism, disobedience, sinful pride, etc. being hurled against such priests, many other priests and laity probably think or feel the TLM or even any Latin is unCatholic. Judging by the many comments made here and elsewhere, that paradigm will be hard to shift IMO, in spite of the FSSP, ICRSS, and 2007 SP.

It’s got to be more than wanting to relearn Latin if (re)learning Spanish or some other language is considered more in line with “parish needs.”

Honesty, PV, you lost me at…

…other priests and laity probably think or feel the TLM or even any Latin is unCatholic".

I’ve never heard that. I’ve not read that here on CAF that I can remember.

Unfamiliar, yes. Not what they want, sometimes. But un-Catholic? I’ve never heard that said.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

The document mentions where the faithful can take the matter to the bishop if they do not get satisfaction from the priest, but no where does it refer to any sort of appeal or process for going over the bishop’s authority. Not there. Never will be. Such things are counter the role of a bishop. The Church is not a democracy.

Well I don’t have the Latin in front of me right now but the English translation says:

Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 õ 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”.

Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” to obtain counsel and assistance.

Art. 9. § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

Offhand, I don’t know if the Latin covers “he cannot arrange for” and/or “he refuses.”

 

[triumphguy]

Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”

The Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” was established by John Paul II with the Motu Proprio of 2 July 1988 with the “task of collaborating with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church”.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ced_documents/rc_con_cfaith_20090930_ecclesia-dei_en.html

It doesn’t sound like some place set up to receive complaints about the lack of Latin in a regular parish.

…the Pontifical Commission exercises the authority of the Holy See over various institutes and religious communities which it has erected which have as their “proper Rite” the “extraordinary form” of the Roman Rite and observe the previous traditions of the religious life.

 

[roadsend]

Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ced_documents/rc_con_cfaith_20090930_ecclesia-dei_en.html

It doesn’t sound like some place set up to receive complaints about the lack of Latin in a regular parish.

Summorum Pontificum expanded the role of the Ecclesia Dei commission a few years ago to include this sort of thing.

 

[TempleServant]

From a press release by the Latin Mass Society in the UK:

The Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ now exercises the power “as hierarchical superior” to decide upon complaints referred to it regarding any “administrative provision of an Ordinary which appears to be contrary to the Motu Proprio” subject to final appeal to the Apostolic Signatura

A bishop is not a god. If he’s not doing his job properly, you can write to the appropriate authority in Rome.

 

[JReducation]

Don’t waste time trying to argue with a bishop, play a numbers game with parishioners (“stable group” was removed from the final language, wasn’t it? But even so, it is NOT the bishop who defines “stable”), get a petition or any other such wasted efforts that will yield only acrimony.

No. Stable numbers was not removed. What UE did was to specify that the people requesting the EF need not be from the same parish. You must still have a stable number, but you can get a group that comes from several parishes in an area to form that stable number. This was clarified, because there was a question as to how big is the number and whether it could include people from outside the parish.

The instructions of the Holy See in matters where the Bishop refuses to comply with Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum are to refer the matter DIRECTLY to Ecclesia Dei

The laity has no right or authority to send any priest, brother or sister to any training, even if they pay for it. Everyone of us must get permission from the proper authority to attend such courses.

In the case of a diocesan priest, the bishop will never grant permission if there is no one to cover his duties. He would have to use his vocation time or wait until someone is available to cover for him. Bishops are usually very good at trying to help priests who want to go for further studies.

If the priest belongs to a religious order, even if the bishop or the laity were to offer to pay for the training, the religious superior outranks both the bishop and the laity together. No one can send his men anywhere without his permission. No one can threaten him or his men for refusing to do so. That would be suppression. Only the pope can suppress a religious.

We truly need to get off the high road. We’re making enemies instead of saving our souls. At the end of the day, the reason for wanting the EF is because we want to be saints. Saints do not take on their bishops unless the bishop commits an act of immorality or commands immorality. This is not such a situation.

The bishop is not our employee. If anything, he is the local Church. Without him there is no Church. The Holy Father was very clear that SP was to be put in place under the leadership of the bishop. He cannot be ignored or bypassed. Such an action, on the part of any group, can only lead to a reprimand from the Holy See.

Only male religious can bypass a bishop, secular Catholics, be they clergy or laity cannot do so. Religious can do so, because they have their own Ordinary.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[Silver_Thread]

The Bishop is the direct descendant of the Apostles in the diocese.

He’s not some flunky who is supposed to do things our way.

Nor is he a middle manager with a supervisor that we can can complain to.

Nor are the faithful members of a trade union.

We don’t get to vote on what the bishop does.

You are indeed right, the Bishop is a direct descendant of the Apostles and the Pope is Peter the Rock and when a Bishop tries to act as Peter in his diocese, he has a problem when he is in direct conflict with the Holy Father. If he choses to act independently of the Holy Father does he bring himself into schism? I’m not a canonical lawyer. I will however state that something is amiss in the church when Bishops’ chose to ignore the entreaties of …not one …but two Popes who have explicitly stated that the Bishops are to provide the Traditional Latin Mass under the guidelines that they have clearly speelled out! Yes I can vote…I withhold my contributions!

 

[triumphguy]

One of the **precepts **of the Church is to support the Church.

Withholding money in “protest” presumes that the Church is there to please us and/or there is some kind of popularity contest, and/or we are paying fo some kind of “service” and we have a right to complain.

Read Acts 5:1-11 if you want to see how serious this matter is!

To be a traditional Catholic is to be obedient first, is it not?

What gets me about these discussions is that someone like Bro JR can spend time and energy sharing his CONSIDERABLE experience, out of charity, and in an impulse to help educate us, and people don’t even bother to read and digest what he writes.

People! If you want things “your” way, you’ve got to do it the Church’s way!:doh2:

 

[JReducation]

You are indeed right, the Bishop is a direct descendant of the Apostles and the Pope is Peter the Rock and when a Bishop tries to act as Peter in his diocese, he has a problem when he is in direct conflict with the Holy Father.

We have to be very gentle here. There are some very strict theological and canonical rules that apply. A diocese is a Church. The bishop is the head of that Church. As the Fathers of the Church taught, “where there is the bishop, there is the Church.” They did not say, “Where there is Peter . . .” They were very specific.

There are some matters in which the bishop can deviate away from the wishes of the pope without going into schism. He must teach and govern in union with the pope on those matters defined by faith, moral law and Canon Law. He must also obey when commanded by the pope. Whatever is not in any of those laws or is not commanded is up to him to decide how much assent he gives.

If he choses to act independently of the Holy Father does he bring himself into schism?

Only if the action is deemed schismatic by law or by the pope.

Even then, one can commit a schismatic act without going into schism. Look at Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. The actions, not the people, are schismatic.

I’m not a canonical lawyer. I will however state that something is amiss in the church when Bishops’ chose to ignore the entreaties of …not one …but two Popes who have explicitly stated that the Bishops are to provide the Traditional Latin Mass under the guidelines that they have clearly speelled out!

The bishops were exhorted. They were never commanded. This was done deliberately to allow them room to move around without being in legal conflict. When a pope wants to command he issues a decree or he creates a new canon that is added to Canon Law.

Yes I can vote…I withhold my contributions!

To do so is immoral, because it violates one of the Commandments of the Church and it violates Canon Law. The Church has no moral obligation to please the faithful. The Church’s only moral obligation is to provide the sacraments. That obligation is being met.

Even if the local bishop were to be weak in that area, it does not justify our violating a commandment in retribution. We don’t contribute to the Church, because she gives us something. We contribute to the Church, because it is our duty to do so.

The Church is not an organization under contract, which would justify withholding funds until her side of the contract is fulfilled. She has no contract with us. We are incorporated into the Church by Baptism. She is not incorporated into us.

Do you see the difference?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TempleServant]

By golly, I’m tired of hearing the word ‘obedience’ used in relation to traditionalist concerns. It’s taken about 40 years for the Church to state that, why, yes, after all, to have a Latin Mass is perfectly fine. In another 40, it will state that altar girls, CITH, sappy hymns and socialist flirtations weren’t such good ideas after all.

While that process grinds on, you’ll still have people equating obedience with approving local experimentation. As a layman, I don’t know what obedience means for me in practical terms. No bishop is telling me I must like the novelties and cannot prefer an old rite mass. I’m not a religious or a priest.

 

[JReducation]

You are indeed right, the Bishop is a direct descendant of the Apostles and the Pope is Peter the Rock and when a Bishop tries to act as Peter in his diocese, he has a problem when he is in direct conflict with the Holy Father. If he choses to act independently of the Holy Father does he bring himself into schism? I’m not a canonical lawyer. I will however state that something is amiss in the church when Bishops’ chose to ignore the entreaties of …not one …but two Popes who have explicitly stated that the Bishops are to provide the Traditional Latin Mass under the guidelines that they have clearly speelled out! Yes I can vote…I withhold my contributions!

By golly, I’m tired of hearing the word ‘obedience’ used in relation to traditionalist concerns. It’s taken about 40 years for the Church to state that, why, yes, after all, to have a Latin Mass is perfectly fine. In another 40, it will state that altar girls, CITH, sappy hymns and socialist flirtations weren’t such good ideas after all.

While that process grinds on, you’ll still have people equating obedience with approving local experimentation. As a layman, I don’t know what obedience means for me in practical terms. No bishop is telling me I must like the novelties and cannot prefer an old rite mass. I’m not a religious or a priest.

Clergy and religious are not the only people bound to obedience. A bishop is ordained to do three things: teach, sanctify and govern. Govern assumes a hierarchical relationship in which he is the authority and you and I are his subordinates. We do owe him obedience when he speaks as the bishop of the diocese. He is not required to speak infallibly or even speak on matters of faith. Bishops can govern on any matter, temporal or spiritual that relate to his diocese and the people in his jurisdiction. This is part of the tradition of the Church that goes back to the Apostles. St. Clement of Rome, the first successor of St. Peter, reaffirms this in his letter to the Corinthians. He reminds them that he, as Bishop of Rome and their local bishop, have the authority to govern in temporal matters.

St.Augustine brings this up again in City of God. Aquinas does so again as does St. Robert Bellarmine when addressing the rebellion.

We often forget that a bishop is ordained to govern. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, obedience can only be withheld when we are commanded to sin. He meant a real sin, not something that we imagine to be a sin, but that the Church has never identified as a sin.

We do have a moral obligation to bishops, unless you’re an exempt religious. That’s because exempt religious have their own Ordinary.

The laity’s only Ordinary is the local bishop and above him, the pope. The Church requires that we apply the principles of collegiality and subsidiarity. The bishop has the same authority as the pope, unless the pope explicitly overrules him. This happens very rarely.

I hope that helps your understanding.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Silver_Thread]

One of the **precepts **of the Church is to support the Church.

Withholding money in “protest” presumes that the Church is there to please us and/or there is some kind of popularity contest, and/or we are paying fo some kind of “service” and we have a right to complain.

Read Acts 5:1-11 if you want to see how serious this matter is!

To be a traditional Catholic is to be obedient first, is it not?

What gets me about these discussions is that someone like Bro JR can spend time and energy sharing his CONSIDERABLE experience, out of charity, and in an impulse to help educate us, and people don’t even bother to read and digest what he writes.

People! If you want things “your” way, you’ve got to do it the Church’s way!:doh2:

And you presume what we are thinking…??? Yes…we have a right to question in serious matters! And you make the stretch of Acts 5:1-11 to this discussion? I do not withhold from the Church, I can withhold from the Bishop in my diocese and give it elsewhere! If the bishop is in direct conflict with the Holy Father, we can make our appeal through the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which many have done and if the Bishop still refuses, Yes we can withhold from him, but not the Church! He is not the Church!

 

[Moore11]

And you presume what we are thinking…??? Yes…we have a right to question in serious matters! And you make the stretch of Acts 5:1-11 to this discussion? I do not withhold from the Church, I can withhold from the Bishop in my diocese and give it elsewhere! If the bishop is in direct conflict with the Holy Father, we can make our appeal through the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which many have done and if the Bishop still refuses, Yes we can withhold from him, but not the Church! He is not the Church!

I understand your frustration. It sure must be nice for some of these people to live in diocese that have a great Bishop. I wonder what they would think if they lived in some of the places I have.

 

[ProVobis]

By golly, I’m tired of hearing the word ‘obedience’ used in relation to traditionalist concerns. It’s taken about 40 years for the Church to state that, why, yes, after all, to have a Latin Mass is perfectly fine. In another 40, it will state that altar girls, CITH, sappy hymns and socialist flirtations weren’t such good ideas after all.

And in a thousand years or so, someone will get the idea to reinstate those things, justifying it with a “Back in 2012 they did the all-vernacular and all those other things and they knew what they were doing.”

 

[ProVobis]

I understand your frustration. It sure must be nice for some of these people to live in diocese that have a great Bishop. I wonder what they would think if they lived in some of the places I have.

Some actually move to Latin Mass areas. I ran into several about 10 years ago at a Rockford dinner which was sponsored by the ICRSS. I realize a move like this is difficult, though, if you have a good job outside a TLM-friendly area.

That said, it must be remembered that bishops are moved to different dioceses or resign when they reach 75. In my diocese there have been three bishops within 5 years. So the other alternative is to wait it out and don’t go on record as being a trouble-maker.

 

[AveMariaMag7]

Hi, as most of you know I go to **X Church. ** 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 X **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

We have the same problem in our parish/diocese. (Maybe we’re in the same diocese???)
In January of '07 (before Summorium Pontificum) we had requested our Bishop for a TLM.
He said “NO”.We could travel 130 miles round trip to the only one found in our diocese. Our pastor was enthused by 7/7/7 and wanted to go to a certain seminary where they offered classes for a week long training program. The bishop forbade him to go and I was told that another priest was also forbidden to go. A third priest went and was called back after a day or 2 and did not complete the training. The bishop has a short leash on this priest. A visiting priest from an order that says the TLM was visiting ailing parents and wanted to say the Mass at this 3rd priest’s parish. He was allowed with the condition he told no one about it. Like he was afraid “somebody” would find out he allowed this priest to celebrate Mass there. Another parishioner in another town sent a letter to the Diocesan paper asking why couldn’t they have the TLM Mass there No reply. A third parish in still another town when discussing the TLM said the bishop won’t allow it. I told this person that since Summorium Pontificum we had the right to have one. This person’s shoulders drooped in discouragement and added “The bishop forbids it” My heart breaks because I and others are deprived of a Mass that brings us closer to God in the God-centered Mass.
It is to cry for and I often do.