Bishop Banning Latin Mass

[Marie5890]

The pope’s words & wishes trump any words & wishes of a Bishop. In Summoum Pontificum & the Motu Proprio say that is a stable group of parishoners ask for this Mass, their desires should be granted. Go to Ecclesia Dei for help.

Jane, I think if you read the full thread you will find that the process is not quite like you think it is.

It’s be explained in some detail why that line of thinking is a bit off from what reality is.

 

[TempleServant]

Ok, we know the legal position. That’s what we always get on this forum, eventually. Long threads about law and precedent. And then we hear things like that ‘Pro multis’ should actually be said as ‘For the many’, in English. Only took about 30 years.

The real elephant in the room is that some bishops, clergy and laity are opposed to the old mass and don’t want it said at all. There is an opposition to it. Time and again we hear of obstruction. Which is funny-peculiar when the wider church is contstantly trying to get people to go to Mass.

An attempt has been made to compromise with The World. It has failed, as it was doomed to fail. Liberals are going to learn this soon, if the anti-Christianity which is now free to speak in the public square isn’t already giving them a clue. Mass-emphasised-as-happy-communal-meal is not sufficient to bear us up in these circumstances.

It’s a trial to pick up the pieces and start again, but I guess it goes with the job description. Suffer on!

 

[Marie5890]

Did any of you read ***anything ***that Br. Jay has written in this thread??!!
Maybe you should go back and re-read!

@ Br. Jay-
Thank you again for the wonderful information & education!
As always, you & your community will be in my prayers!

I also add my thanks.

Time and time again I think our American/Western way of thinking can get in the way of understanding how the Church works.

We (Americans/Westerners) tend to stick our heels in and get our “pride” over our “rights” and we have expectations and demands that we just think and assume will/should be met.

The Church, in Her governance, doesnt necessarily work that way. There is more of a sense of obedience and humility, less of a “demanding of rights”…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Isn’t this nice, we’re all lawyers using weasel words. If the priest is willing (in charity we must accept the word of the OP on this matter) and there are those who have requested the Latin Mass, and the vestments and supplies are available, why should the Bishop object? Believe it or not, some bishops are just simply against the Latin Mass, they’ve decided they won’t accept it. Unfortunately for them, the Pope has made it clear they do NOT have to the right to deny the Latin Mass to those who request it.

I think everyone on this thread who speaks about the priest being willing needes to go back a reread at least the original post.

He is willing but unable.

He is unable due to the fact he does not know Latin.

He may also be unable due to reasons Br JR posted in his replies.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Only when it suits him!

Very hatful, judgmental comment.

A bishop is free to act on many thing. Not every word from the Holy Father is a command tbat must be follow no matter what.

This is something that many need to learn.

 

[Stylites]

Pray pay and obey seems to have been the operative words in the Church for quite some time! Step out of line and you find out how many laws there are that you have violated. Much like our Federal, state and local governments. As long as the money pours in everything is cool.

I feel so unclean after reading this, that I have to wash my hands now. With the Federal government launching attacks against our bishops, we should be standing and praying with them instead of casting slurs at them.

 

[JReducation]

Pray pay and obey seems to have been the operative words in the Church for quite some time! Step out of line and you find out how many laws there are that you have violated. Much like our Federal, state and local governments. As long as the money pours in everything is cool.

This is a very disrespectful statement about the bishops. Let’s get things clear here.

Allegedly, the interest in the EF is because it reinforces growth in the spiritual life. In the person that is seeking truth growth in the spiritual life there should be no room for hateful and hurtful language.

The EF is not going to get anyone to heaven who gets it by pointing a loaded gun at his bishop or by bashing a bishop. Grace does not work that way.

True saints always function in communion with the bishops, not in conflict with them. When they have had difficulties with the bishops, they have submitted themselves to their authority and waited for God to act.

There is a difference between the Church Militant and the Church Belligerent. The above statement is belligerent. Holiness is achieved through obedience as Christ practiced it, without murmuring, without resentment and with a heart filled with love for those who persecute us, intentionally or unintentionally.

Our heart must be like that heart of Mary at the foot of the cross. It must be immaculate, free of vindictiveness and all forms of resistance to God’s will for us. The sense that comes through here is that we want to demand our way into heaven.

Heaven is not earned by demanding it, because it’s not a right, it’s a privilege that comes to us through the mercy of God and the charity of the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[gentle_atheist]

So all that foot-washing on Holy Thursday means what? Wouldn’t it be more honest for the laity to wash the bishop’s feet?

Due to the unfortunate history of hostility to the TLM on the part of many bishops, traditional Catholics are understandably suspicious that such hostility is the real reason behind the bishop’s denial of their request for a TLM.

At the end of the day, everyone knows that if the bishop himself wants the TLM, then there will be a TLM.

 

[JReducation]

So all that foot-washing on Holy Thursday means what? Wouldn’t it be more honest for the laity to wash the bishop’s feet?

Due to the unfortunate history of hostility to the TLM on the part of many bishops, traditional Catholics are understandably suspicious that such hostility is the real reason behind the bishop’s denial of their request for a TLM.

At the end of the day, everyone knows that if the bishop himself wants the TLM, then there will be a TLM.

The foot washing of Holy Thursday has nothing to do with this. The foot washing of Holy Thursday is an act of diakonia. The governance of a diocese is an episcopal act. Two very different acts pertaining to two very different order in the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

At the end of the day, where there is the bishop, there is the Church. End of story.

The Catholic Church is hierarchical, from the Greek term, heiros, which means priest. It is a Church run by priests, not by laymen. Christ founded it to be run by priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[roadsend]

Good brother,
I and many others have put in our forty plus years in the liturgical desert. Some bishops have used every possible excuse to deny us the TLM or any Latin liturgy that entire time. Early on, when every priest was able to say a Latin Mass and many wanted to, these bishops exiled or suspended them or ordered them not to do this. I personally know some of these priests and they are not SSPXers. Now the excuse is: There are not enough priests or they do not know Latin. Whose fault is it that a priest does not know Latin? Canon Law requires that they be taught Latin in the seminary. In between I have been told that: “Latin has been outlawed.” or “My bishop will not allow Latin”
Bishops have made snide anti-TLM, “Medievalism”, or Latin in general remarks. I can even cite an article in a diocesan newspaper where an archbishop openly denigrated the TLM. I have picked up magazines in the back of church with articles openly denigrating the TLM and Latin in general.
I want to attend a Mass free from abuses that I can walk out of church at the end feeling that I have been to a Catholic Mass instead of some kind of holy roller hootenanny, and I am tired of hearing excuses. My spiritual needs are not being met by the status quo.
Our Holy Father has made his wishes crystal clear and I have had it with the passive-aggressive attitude of too many of our bishops.
Just calling it like I see it.

And by the way, the original quote from St. Ambrose is “Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia, et ibi ecclesia vita eterna.” I don’t know who pulled out Petrus and slipped in the bishop. Maybe the episcopalians? When the Pope says one thing and the bishop another, I know whom I choose to follow.

 

[AveMariaMag7]

Are you sure that the person who reported this story explained all of the facts?
I AM POSITIVE.

Let me let you in a little secret, because I belong to a religious community. When a regular priest is away from his province, such as visiting his family, he can approach any church and request permission to celebrate mass. As long as he has a letter of obedience in his pocket, the pastor must allow him to celebrate a private mass.
I DIDN’T CHECK HIS POCKETS, BUT HE WAS ALLOWED TO SAY THE PRIVATE MASS AS LONG AS HE TOLD NO ONE ELSE ABOUT IT. WHAT WAS THE FEAR OF ANY BODY ELSE ATTENDING THIS PRIVATE MASS? EVEN HIS MOTHER WAS A LITTLE LEERY OF GOING AND OPTED NOT TO ATTEND.

Because the priest is an extern, he does not have a right to celebrate a public mass unless there is a good reason, such as a wedding, funeral, First Communion, mission, or some other pastoral reason.
THIS WAS NOT A PUBLIC MASS, BUT A PRIVATE MASS WHICH HE WANTED TO CELEBRATE IN A CHURCH AND NOT A HOTEL ROOM.

In addition, no regular priest may celebrate the EF in public without the permission of his religious superior. Normally, religious superiors do not grant this permission to priests who are simply visiting their relatives. Your visiting priest may have not had permission to celebrate a public EF.
THERE HAD NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM BEFORE BY THIS PRIEST OR OTHER PRIESTS OF THIS SAME ORDER WHEN VISITING THEIR FAMILIES.

Regular priests are not free to celebrate the EF in public as are diocesan priests. They must have the permission of their community to do so. This permission can be restricted to certain places.
HE WAS FREE TO DO SO AND PRIESTS IN THIS ORDER ARE FREE TO DO SO (AT LEAST AS I HAVE NOTICED THIS IN THE PAST)

I’m not saying this is what happened here. I’m asking if this was possible or does your source know for sure that the religious superior granted permission for a public EF. And does your source know that a local pastor is not bound to grant an extern a public mass unless there is a pastoral reason for it?
AGAIN THIS WAS NOT A PUBLIC BUT A PRIVATE MASS WHICH WAS REQUESSTED AND GRANTED BUT WITH FEAR FROM THE PASTOR THAT ANYONE SHOULD HEAR ABOUT IT. AGAIN WHAT WAS THE FEAR? THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO FEAR.

I feel like you are putting me on a witness stand but I know what I’m talking about.
By the way my capitalized letters above are not meant to be as if I am shouting. They were only capitalized to differentiate them from your statements/questions and my replies.

 

[JReducation]

Good brother,
I and many others have put in our forty plus years in the liturgical desert. Some bishops have used every possible excuse to deny us the TLM or any Latin liturgy that entire time. Early on, when every priest was able to say a Latin Mass and many wanted to, these bishops exiled or suspended them or ordered them not to do this. I personally know some of these priests and they are not SSPXers. Now the excuse is: There are not enough priests or they do not know Latin. Whose fault is it that a priest does not know Latin? Canon Law requires that they be taught Latin in the seminary. In between I have been told that: “Latin has been outlawed.” or “My bishop will not allow Latin”
Bishops have made snide anti-TLM, “Medievalism”, or Latin in general remarks. I can even cite an article in a diocesan newspaper where an archbishop openly denigrated the TLM. I have picked up magazines in the back of church with articles openly denigrating the TLM and Latin in general.
I want to attend a Mass free from abuses that I can walk out of church at the end feeling that I have been to a Catholic Mass instead of some kind of holy roller hootenanny, and I am tired of hearing excuses. My spiritual needs are not being met by the status quo.
Our Holy Father has made his wishes crystal clear and I have had it with the passive-aggressive attitude of too many of our bishops.
Just calling it like I see it.

And by the way, the original quote from St. Ambrose is “Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia, et ibi ecclesia vita eterna.” I don’t know who pulled out Petrus and slipped in the bishop. Maybe the episcopalians? When the Pope says one thing and the bishop another, I know whom I choose to follow.

Let’s start with the quote from St. Ambrose. He did say that. Further along, the Church inserted the bishop in that quote.

Next, the Holy Father did not command the bishops, he exhorted the bishops. Whether their motives are right or wrong, legally they are within their right to say that they cannot provide the EF because of certain inconveniences. We cannot deny them their legal rights.

There no legal right to have the EF. The Holy Father deliberately used the term “extraordinary” to allow the bishops wiggle room. The Holy Father exhorted the bishops to call on the Ecclesia Dei Commission for assistance. However, the Ecclesia Dei Commission cannot pull priests out of thin air.

Latin has been taught in seminaries, but like any foreign language, if you don’t use it, you lose it. I spent four years in Latin class and I can assure you that I can’t speak Latin. I never had to use it until now, because I’m the superior general of my community and all formal documents must be written in Latin. I sit there with a dictionary and grammar book. Then I pass it on to someone who knows it well to check it. This is the situation with most priests and religious.

There are many priests who do not want to relearn Latin. There is no law that requires that they do so. Even though Latin is the official language of the Church, the law does not require that it be used. For example, at the Vatican, they changed the Latin requirement. They used to conduct all business in Latin. That is no longer the case. They do everything in Italian.

The major religious orders conducted all business in Latin, that is no longer the case. They can use Spanish or English, the two most spoken languages in the world. Unless you are in a situation that requires that you use Latin, you’ll forget it, just like those students who studied French or Spanish in high school or college.

The abuses have nothing to do with this. Every OF mass must be celebrated according to the rubrics in the missal. If there is an abuse, the answer is not to replace the OF with an EF. There have been abuses in the EF mass as well. The solution is to correct the abuses. Pope Benedict makes this very clear. The faithful have the right to present their concerns to the pastor and to the bishop.

There is a difference between a bishop withholding a right and a bishop withholding something that the pope himself refers to as extraordinary. Should the bishop make an effort to be helpful? Of course. That’s what the documents say. Can the bishop force his priests do to this? Absolutely not. This can lead to a suspension of the bishop. He is violating the rights of the clergy. No one wants to join a diocese where the clergy has to submit to the wishes of the laity. The bishop has to protect his men from being overloaded with things that they can’t do or don’t want to do and don’t have to do.

The whole question boils down to a dynamic dialogue between those who want the EF and the local pastor. If he can’t help, then the diocese. It must never come down to a confrontation. In any confrontation between clergy and laity, the laity will lose. The bishop can impose an interdict. We don’t want to go to those extremes. We want to work together to reach as many people as possible.

Finally, we must remember that the EF is not always one of the top 10 priorities of a bishop, even though it may be for us. The bishop has many more important issues to face on a daily basis. If there are parishes celebrating masses and there is a shortage of people working for the unborn, guess where the bishop’s priority lays. The EF will have to wait until he can get around to meeting with people and discussing their request. This is not to say that some bishops simply don’t want to entertain the idea. Of course some do not want to do so. But that is not the case with the majority. They case with the majority is a matter of priorities and resources.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

AGAIN THIS WAS NOT A PUBLIC BUT A PRIVATE MASS WHICH WAS REQUESSTED AND GRANTED BUT WITH FEAR FROM THE PASTOR THAT ANYONE SHOULD HEAR ABOUT IT. AGAIN WHAT WAS THE FEAR? THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO FEAR.

Here is the key right here. It is a private mass. The pastor and the religious superior have the canonical right to restrict who can attend. We may not like his reasons, but we cannot protest when someone acts within the law.

I feel like you are putting me on a witness stand but I know what I’m talking about.
By the way my capitalized letters above are not meant to be as if I am shouting. They were only capitalized to differentiate them from your statements/questions and my replies.

I’m not trying to put you on the witness stand. I’m trying to help everyone understand the rules here. Often, we get so passionate about this subject that we forget that people have rights and obligations.

In this case, if it’s a private mass, it should not be announced to anyone. That’s what a private mass means. If the pastor allows it to be announced, then it’s a public mass. The law does not bind the pastor to allow an extern priest to celebrate a public mass in his parish. He must allow a private mass. He can deny a public mass because he doesn’t like the visiting priest. That’s good enough for the Vatican, as long as his bishop approves of his motives. The bishop makes the final call. The Vatican respects this.

Here is the problem. We have people at the local level not respecting or accepting what the Vatican respects and accepts. There is a conflict in points of view here and it’s really not between the local people and the bishop, but the local people and the Vatican.

If the Vatican allows a bishop to do A, B, and C, who are we to disagree? If we disagree, are we disagreeing with the local bishop or with the Vatican for allowing it?

I understood why you capitalized. You may want to use the quote command, so that you can split the original post into parts. It makes it easier to follow who said what. Thanks for trying to make it as easy as possible for us to read.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

This is probably a good time for TLM hating bishops to gracefully reconsider their opposition, with an eye on the SSPX situation.

 

[JReducation]

This is probably a good time for TLM hating bishops to gracefully reconsider their opposition, with an eye on the SSPX situation.

Wasserfall, you’re not working with the Church. You’re taking an antagonistic position, which actually decreases your chances of getting the EF. The Holy Father has made it very clear that anyone who is aligned with any group like the EF cannot request the EF. The attitude of many people associated with the SSPX is not one that deserves admiration or imitation. It’s arrogant and belligerent.

There have been other cases around the country where entire parishes and groups of people were denied all the sacraments for their hostility toward the bishops. I have known individuals who are restricted to mass and the sacraments, because of hostility toward their bishop. All it took was one memorandum from the bishop. Look at the current case in the Diocese of Madison.

People seem to think that they can take shots at bishops and not get caught or worse, not get consequences. Along with that, there is no spiritual merit in such a position. One has to decide if one’s vocation is to achieve holiness or to achieve the EF. If you put these two in conflict with each other, the achievement of either becomes very difficult.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

The major religious orders conducted all business in Latin, that is no longer the case. They can use Spanish or English, the two most spoken languages in the world. Unless you are in a situation that requires that you use Latin, you’ll forget it, just like those students who studied French or Spanish in high school or college.

Br JR, precisely the point. If Catholic laity isn’t going to be exposed to Latin at Mass, where will they be exposed? Probably not when they travel to France or Spain. And the longer you have all-vernacular all-the-time who will be left to ask for Latin? How many years was it that the Latin Mass was suppressed? 18, 20, 40 in some areas? That there is even a small interest in it (or even to offer it as a honors class as they are doing in my county) should be a tribute to the Pope’s and the Church’s attempt to preserve the language and the form, I would think.

 

[Marie5890]

This is a very disrespectful statement about the bishops. Let’s get things clear here.

Allegedly, the interest in the EF is because it reinforces growth in the spiritual life. In the person that is seeking truth growth in the spiritual life there should be no room for hateful and hurtful language.

The EF is not going to get anyone to heaven who gets it by pointing a loaded gun at his bishop or by bashing a bishop. Grace does not work that way.

True saints always function in communion with the bishops, not in conflict with them. When they have had difficulties with the bishops, they have submitted themselves to their authority and waited for God to act.

There is a difference between the Church Militant and the Church Belligerent. The above statement is belligerent. Holiness is achieved through obedience as Christ practiced it, without murmuring, without resentment and with a heart filled with love for those who persecute us, intentionally or unintentionally.

Our heart must be like that heart of Mary at the foot of the cross. It must be immaculate, free of vindictiveness and all forms of resistance to God’s will for us. The sense that comes through here is that we want to demand our way into heaven.

Heaven is not earned by demanding it, because it’s not a right, it’s a privilege that comes to us through the mercy of God and the charity of the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

What a beautiful describe of practicing holiness in this life.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

One has to decide if **one’s vocation is to achieve holiness **or to achieve the EF. If you put these two in conflict with each other, the achievement of either becomes very difficult.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I really like this. You’ve said it before and it applies to so many things. If my goal is to be a Saint, than other things have to fall in priority. I know I am blessed to have easy access to the EF and beautifully celebrated OFs. However, there are Saints who walked miles and miles to get to mumbled, rushed low Masses; whose priest didn’t like them; who suffered many other things. On the whole, our problems in 21st century US are so minor in comparision.

I suggest we all offer up the Masses we attend (whether they are our preferred form or not) for those who today only see a priest every few months or even just once a year!

 

[choliks]

Isn’t the bishop supposed to obey the Pope with grace and humility as well?

Friend, that is not how subsidiarity works.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, precisely the point. If Catholic laity isn’t going to be exposed to Latin at Mass, where will they be exposed? Probably not when they travel to France or Spain. And the longer you have all-vernacular all-the-time who will be left to ask for Latin? How many years was it that the Latin Mass was suppressed? 18, 20, 40 in some areas? That there is even a small interest in it (or even to offer it as a honors class as they are doing in my county) should be a tribute to the Pope’s and the Church’s attempt to preserve the language and the form, I would think.

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