Bishop Banning Latin Mass

[Melchior_1]

Published Friday jan 20th in our diocese newspaper by the Bishop.

I tried to take out the locations.
For the calendar that issue there is no Latin Mass anywhere in the diocese. Like I said before, one a month at a rural outpost.

Like I said, I am obedient and the Bishop, my leader has made his wishes well known. So, even though I crave the EF, and even though the Catholic Church has kinda said I can go to SSPX if I wish. My Bishop says No! I dont agree, I can speculate about why, but bottom line it comes down to Obedience!
I pray and pray that this month will be the month that the SSPX are rejoined. But my Bishop will have quite the headache if this happens.

You sir, are a strong man. I commend you for this attitude, and wish more Catholics throughout the world had it (regarding obedience). God will bless you richly for this, although it may not feel like it now.

It is off topic but many on this thread were on another thread where it was being discussed just how a prelature would work. Would Rome override the Bishop’s authority in his own diocese and grandfather in current SSPX chapels, or would the Bishops each have a say within their own diocese if a SSPX chapter could be in operation? You can see the problem here.

Just one more thing that will need to be ironed out, I guess.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

If Brother JR believes that the bishop has a right to forbid a pastor who is qualified to celebrate a traditional mass from doing so, then I respectfully disagree with Brother JR.
And the only way to find out who is right and who is wrong is to make a case of it in court.
Since we aren’t going to be doing that, there’s not much point in further discussion.

The bishop is the only real pastor in the diocese. He delegates his authority to other priests because he can’t run every parish himself. However, what he delegates, he can take back.

The authority to decide how many Masses a parish needs and how many any priest can say reside with the bishop. The bishop assigns priests to parishes and is responsible for their development as priests - both liturgically and pastorally.

 

[wasserfall]

The bishop is the only real pastor in the diocese. He delegates his authority to other priests because he can’t run every parish himself. However, what he delegates, he can take back.

The authority to decide how many Masses a parish needs and how many any priest can say reside with the bishop. The bishop assigns priests to parishes and is responsible for their development as priests - both liturgically and pastorally.

The plain words of Summorum Pontifcum & Universae Ecclesiae seem to give the pastor this right.

 

[wasserfall]

It is off topic but many on this thread were on another thread where it was being discussed just how a prelature would work. Would Rome override the Bishop’s authority in his own diocese and grandfather in current SSPX chapels, or would the Bishops each have a say within their own diocese if a SSPX chapter could be in operation? You can see the problem here.

I think there can be little doubt that all existing SSPX priories, chapels and others establishments (schools, seminaries, etc.) will be grandfathered.

The SSPX side is hinting that they will also be free to establish new priories and chapels even contrary to the wishes of local bishops. I find that kind of hard to believe, but I guess we’ll find out soon enough (assuming they do become regularized).

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The plain words of Summorum Pontifcum & Universae Ecclesiae seem to give the pastor this right.

They give the priest the right to celebrate the EF in private.
From SP, my emphasis added

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

A Bishop is well within his rights according to Canon Law to prevent any priest from from doing anything publically without his permission.
That’s a perk that comes with the funny hat and the big stick.

 

[Marie5890]

That’s a perk that comes with the funny hat and the big stick.

That had me chuckling in a topic that could use a bit of humor. Thank you.

 

[wasserfall]

They give the priest the right to celebrate the EF in private.

I refer to Article 5 together with the subsequent clarifications in UE.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I refer to Article 5 together with the subsequent clarifications in UE.

But it is still ultimately up to the Bishop to decide how his resources are used in his diocese.

Art. 5. § 1 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.

Can. 392 §1. *Since he must protect the unity of the universal Church, a bishop is bound to promote the common discipline of the whole Church *and therefore to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.

§2. He is to exercise vigilance so that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline, especially regarding the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the saints, and the administration of goods.

And then there is this-

Canon 381-
§1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

I will say it again, the Bishop is well within his rights to prevent a priest from saying the EF publically.
My Bishop has neary 300,000 souls to worry about.
We have had a regular Sunday EF every week for nearly 15 years.
There are a lot of complaints here that we should have more access because of SP and that the Bishop is resistant.
With only about 150 attending the EF every week, is another EF really the most effective use of our precious and rare resources (i.e. priests)?

 

[JReducation]

Good Brother,

As I see it the bishop has no right to command me to do anything. I never promised obedience to him. I would totally ignore any orange t-shirt command he were to issue.

For a more realistic example, if a bishop were to order me to vote for his political candidate, I would disobey him even though he is not ordering me to sin.

So then a pastor who, responding to the request of members of his parish, wishes to schedule a regular public, traditional latin mass, and who is sufficiently knowledgeable of Latin, so as to meet the requirements of Summorum Pontificum, may certainly do so, even if his bishop commands him not to, because the bishop commands what he has no right to command.

Let’s begin with Art 5 of SP. Because we’re blending two things here.
**
Art. 5. § 1 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, **

Up to here, we’re being told that the priest can use the 1962 missal. We also being told that it’s the pastor, not the individual priest who accepts the request.

Just because the priest can celebrate the EF, does not mean that he has a right to celebrate it in your parish, if you’re the pastor and you forbid it. One thing is the right to celebrate the EF without asking for permission. The other is celebrating it in someone else’s jurisdiction against that person’s will.

The pastor may have many reasons for not allowing it, such as needing the time slot for a much larger group. Adding the EF to the schedule causes undue hardship on the parish, if it has to eliminate a mass that is well attended. On the other hand, the pastor has to make sure that of the masses are covered, but he cannot allow any priest to celebrate more than two masses in one day. SP deliberately draws the pastor into the picture at this point.

**
under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.**

SP tells us that the pastor acts under the guidance of the bishop according to canon 392.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s look at canon 392.
**
Can. 392 §1. Since he must protect the unity of the universal Church, a bishop is bound to promote the common discipline of the whole Church and therefore to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.**

It is the bishop’s role to protect the unity of the Church. If in his estimation, the introduction of an additional mass at a parish is unhealthy to the unity of that parish, he can prohibit or delay it. He is the pastor. The pastor of the parish is simply his delegate.

**
§2. He is to exercise vigilance so that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline, especially regarding the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the saints, and the administration of goods.**

This would certainly apply in the case where there are not enough priests to insert another mass into the schedule. It would be an abuse to have any priest celebrate three masses unnecessarily.

Now let’s go back to SP.

**
the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962,**

The pastor must act in good faith. However, SP does not say that the pastor must provide an EF. It stops short of that.

Obviously, if the pastor is being mean, there is legitimate reason to approach the bishop. If the pastor puts legitimate reasons on the table for waiting, the bishop is not going to overrule him. No bishop wants to lose a pastor. We don’t have a long line of applicants to be pastors, especially now that male religious are pulling out of most middle class parishes. Let’s not forget that a secular priest is called “secular” for a reason. He is of the world. He has every right to resign, if he feels that he is being bullied by the bishop and the laity.

If the pastor belongs to a religious order, this is a whole other issue. No pastor who belongs to a religious order can grant permission for a public celebration of the EF by a member of his order, without the permission of the major superior. The major superior is the Superior General or the Provincial Superior. In large orders, they often delegate this to the local superior. Even if you have a stable group and you have a slot on the schedule, if the superior says “No”. The answer is no. The laity never has the right to go over the head of religious superior. That would be like going over the head of a bishop, since the religious superior is also an ordinary. In that case, the group would have to ask the bishop if he can find a priest who can celebrate the mass for it. It cannot ask the bishop to force a Salesian to celebrate an EF, if the superior has already said, “No.”

SP is very careful to ensure that there is a distinction between the right of a priest to celebrate the EF and the right of authority to determine whether or not he can celebrate it in its parish and on its time.

The key here is that the pastor is not telling the priest that he cannot celebrate an EF. He’s saying that he will not change the mass schedule to accommodate an EF. The pastor can do that, unless the bishop commands him to change the schedule. If the pastor does not change the schedule and Father already has two masses in English, he can’t celebrate a third mass without the bishop’s permission and at a time when it does not pose an inconvenience to the parish. SP is very clear.
**
ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish,**

Some people believe that SP gave priests a blank check. It did not. It gave diocesan priests permission to use the 1962 missal without asking for permission. That was it. It did not give diocesan priests permission to overrule their pastors or bishops.

It gave religious superiors permission to authorize the use of the 1962 missal in public. It did not give religious priests permission to celebrate the EF without the superior’s permission, even if that priest is a pastor or the superior is a brother. He’s still the superior.

First question: Can we use the 1962 missal? Yes, as long as you meet the criteria of SP and UE.

Second question: Can I use the 1962 missal at any time? No. You cannot upset the unity and well being of your parish or your religious community. You must coordinate with the proper authority.

Third question: Can the bishops say that I can’t celebrate the EF? No. He does not have the authority to deny you.

Fourth question: Why did the bishop say I could not insert the EF into my parish’s Sunday schedule? Because as the supreme pastor of the diocese, the harmony of the parish, the schedules and the number of masses that priests celebrate are his responsibility to oversee. He can deny permission to change a schedule or deny permission to celebrate more than on mass per day. He is not denying permission to use the missal. It would be the same reason for denial that he would have if someone asked to insert a Japanese mass.

I hope this works.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

Brother JR, I am speaking very specifically of the case where a group of people in a parish ask their diocesan priest pastor for the EF, and the pastor is willing to, and capable of, and qualified to celebrate the EF himself.

I don’t see how SP & UE permit the bishop to forbid the pastor to schedule a Mass in the EF sometime during the week.

 

[choliks]

Brother JR, I am speaking very specifically of the case where a group of people in a parish ask their diocesan priest pastor for the EF, and the pastor is willing to, and capable of, and qualified to celebrate the EF himself.

I don’t see how SP & UE permit the bishop to forbid the pastor to schedule a Mass in the EF sometime during the week.

Two words, sir: “public” and “private.” According to SP and UE, a priest can celebrate the EF privately, without permission from the bishop. However, if it’s celebrated publicly, then the bishop has a say.

 

[wasserfall]

Two words, sir: “public” and “private.” According to SP and UE, a priest can celebrate the EF privately, without permission from the bishop. However, if it’s celebrated publicly, then the bishop has a say.

Once again, I am talking about Article 5, which covers public masses for a group of the faithful who request it of their pastor.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, I am speaking very specifically of the case where a group of people in a parish ask their diocesan priest pastor for the EF, and the pastor is willing to, and capable of, and qualified to celebrate the EF himself.

I don’t see how SP & UE permit the bishop to forbid the pastor to schedule a Mass in the EF sometime during the week.

Once again, I am talking about Article 5, which covers public masses for a group of the faithful who request it of their pastor.

Art 5 does not give the pastor authority over the bishop. It’s the bishop’s parish, not the parish of the pastor or the laity. In the cover letter that came with SP, the Holy Father made it very clear to the bishops that they retain total control over the liturgical life of their dioceses as the supreme liturgists. If the bishop legitimately feels that this is not beneficial to the parish or the diocese, he does not have to allow it anymore than he has to allow a mass in another language.

The question here is not whether the priest can celebrate the EF. The question on the table is whether the pastor can put it on the schedule. The bishop cannot stop any diocesan priest from celebrating the EF. However, he retains ownership of his parishes.
Bishops are sole owners of parishes.

Now, remember what I said, “legitimate”. If the pastor feels that the bishop’s reasons are not legitimate, he can appeal it. Pastors rarely do so, because the tribunals will usually rule in favor of the bishop on the grounds that he owns the parish, unless the tribunal believes that there is a abuse of power.

The same law that gives a bishop the right to close a parish, gives him the right to decide what is or is not beneficial to his parishes. Even if the priest were a member of a religious order and he had the permission of his superior, the bishop still owns the parish, not the order.

There is a theological issue here, which gives the pastor this much authority over parishes. Every pastor in the diocese, religious or secular, shares in the bishop’s priesthood and pastoral mission. Being ordained is not enough to start saying public masses. The moment the priest involves the faithful, he must do so through a bishop. The laity is also under the bishop’s guardianship, not the individual pastors.

We’ve had it both ways in my community. One time a superior gave a brother permission to celebrate the EF and the bishop said that it had to wait. It waited several months. On another occasion the bishop asked one of our brothers if he would celebrate it and I said that he could not do so, because I wanted him to do something else. It had to wait.

Bishops and religious superiors have to prioritize how they’re going to use their resources: personnel, time, facilities and money. None of these abound these days. A closer look at UE reveals that the pastor cannot keep the diocesan bishop out of the loop, while the diocesan bishop must act in good faith to implement SP. This takes us back to “legitimate” reasons for not allowing it

**
13. Diocesan Bishops, according to Canon Law, are to monitor liturgical matters in order to guarantee the common good and to ensure that everything is proceeding in peace and serenity in their Dioceses[5], always in agreement with the mens of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.[6] In cases of controversy or well-founded doubt about the celebration in the forma extraordinaria, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will adjudicate.

1. It is the task of the Diocesan Bishop to undertake all necessary measures to ensure respect for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.**

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Julia_Mae]

Brother JR, I am speaking very specifically of the case where a group of people in a parish ask their diocesan priest pastor for the EF, and the pastor is willing to, and capable of, and qualified to celebrate the EF himself.

I don’t see how SP & UE permit the bishop to forbid the pastor to schedule a Mass in the EF sometime during the week.

You have to think of it like a McDonald’s franchise. The franchise owner doesn’t have the power to set prices or change the decor or do much but whatever the company mandates because they actually own the business. The Bishop is your true Pastor, your Basilica or cathedral, wherever the Bishop sits, is always your parish.

Now, why would a Bishop refuse to allow a local Pastor to celebrate the EF? Possibly because he doesn’t want to start something where people would leave their home parishes to attend the parish where the EF is being celebrated. He doesn’t want divisiveness in his Diocese. I don’t know that this is what’s in his mind, I just think it’s one possible explanation.

Bishops also don’t have to explain themselves.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Brother JR, I am speaking very specifically of the case where a group of people in a parish ask their diocesan priest pastor for the EF, and the pastor is willing to, and capable of, and qualified to celebrate the EF himself.

I don’t see how SP & UE permit the bishop to forbid the pastor to schedule a Mass in the EF sometime during the week.

Sure a Wednesday night EF may be much easier to organize than to try and fit an EF into a parish (like mine) that already has 6 Sunday Masses. However, I think the request in most places is for a Sunday EF so that folks can fulfill their obligation each week at an EF. And again, even a Wednesday night (public) Mass may not be allowed if the pastor or bishop says no.

As an example, we did have a Wednesday night EF when we had a priest who wanted to and could celebrate it. It was “public” in the sense that it was held in the church and anyone could walk into it. However, it was not mentioned in the bulletin and not “advertised” outside of word-of-mouth. The pastor made those conditions and the priest upheld them.

That priest is now at another parish and so we no longer have that Mass. However, during this same time, other things that happened at our parish on Wednesday nights have born great fruit. Possibly because of the EF Mass, possibly despite it. On the whole though, it appears as though the pastor’s decision has not adversely affected the parish.

 

[Jane_of_Arc]

Brother JR, I am speaking very specifically of the case where a group of people in a parish ask their diocesan priest pastor for the EF, and the pastor is willing to, and capable of, and qualified to celebrate the EF himself.

I don’t see how SP & UE permit the bishop to forbid the pastor to schedule a Mass in the EF sometime during the week.

Nor do I?? I don’t believe that any of us are asking for a TLM. to be held weekly in every parish. I would settle for a TLM. to be held weekly in each CITY in the diocese. I also hate it that this thread has descended into a “letter of the Law” thing. However, since it has, I’d like to quote Canon Law 383:

Can. 383 §1 In exercising his pastoral office, the diocesan Bishop** is to be solicitous for all Christ’s faithful entrusted to his care, whatever their age, condition or nationality, whether **they live in the territory or are visiting there. He is to show an apostolic spirit also to those who, because of their condition of life, are not sufficiently able to benefit from ordinary pastoral care, and to those who have lapsed from religious practice.

§2 If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either by means of priests or parishes of the same rite, or by an episcopal Vicar.

Canon Law speaks of providing for the spiritual needs of a different rite. The E.F. is part of the SAME RITE as the O.F., yet so many Bishops are throwing up roadblocks right & left??

 

[Julia_Mae]

Nor do I?? I don’t believe that any of us are asking for a TLM. to be held weekly in every parish. I would settle for a TLM. to be held weekly in each CITY in the diocese. I also hate it that this thread has descended into a “letter of the Law” thing.

It has not “descended,” it simply is informing. The Church operates by the law. The Bible is the “Canon” of Scripture. The Rule by which things are judged. I still find the whole thing puzzling. EF proponents are usually, I have found, people who pride themselves in being faithful Catholics. Yet, when tested, as in submitting to and respecting their Bishop, when it’s an issue that they want him to decide differently about, suddenly there is questioning of his right to do what he does, or his wisdom in doing what he does. The question about his right to make the rules this case, ineluctably leads to the references to Canon Law.

 

[JReducation]

You have to think of it like a McDonald’s franchise. The franchise owner doesn’t have the power to set prices or change the decor or do much but whatever the company mandates because they actually own the business. The Bishop is your true Pastor, your Basilica or cathedral, wherever the Bishop sits, is always your parish.

Now that’s funny. I never thought of it that way.

Bishops also don’t have to explain themselves.

Actually, they do, but never to the laity, only to the Vatican and to religious superiors of men, if the matter involves one of their men.

Nor do I?? I don’t believe that any of us are asking for a TLM. to be held weekly in every parish. I would settle for a TLM. to be held weekly in each CITY in the diocese. I also hate it that this thread has descended into a “letter of the Law” thing. However, since it has, I’d like to quote Canon Law 383:

Can. 383 §1 In exercising his pastoral office, the diocesan Bishop** is to be solicitous for all Christ’s faithful entrusted to his care, whatever their age, condition or nationality, whether **they live in the territory or are visiting there. He is to show an apostolic spirit also to those who, because of their condition of life, are not sufficiently able to benefit from ordinary pastoral care, and to those who have lapsed from religious practice.

§2 If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either by means of priests or parishes of the same rite, or by an episcopal Vicar.

Canon Law speaks of providing for the spiritual needs of a different rite. The E.F. is part of the SAME RITE as the O.F., yet so many Bishops are throwing up roadblocks right & left??

The answer here is simple. The EF is not a rite. It is another expression of the same rite. Therefore, the canon would not apply, because there is already mass in the Roman Rite, albeit in the Ordinary Form.

That leaves us with SP and UE which do not bind the bishop to do more than to try to help. Remember, I’m only speaking here of a bishop who has legitimate reasons for not allowing the mass. Any of the following can be a legitimate reason.

1. Does not have a priest who wants to do it.
2. Has a priest, but that priest already has two masses on Sunday.
3. The parish has very full masses. Changing one to an EF may displace 700 people for the sake of 50. This would defeat the goal of SP, which is to preserve unity. Seven hundred people are not going to remain quiet.
4. The parish is staffed by religious and the religious superior does not allow it.
5. He has asked the ED Commission for help, but the Commission can’t find a priest who wants to do it and the FSSP does not have any to tansfer.
6. The FSSP is willing to come to the diocese, but the bishop has no place to put them right now.
7. The lay people who are asking self-identify as SSPXers. SSPXers are not allowed to ask for the EF, one of the conditions laid out by the Holy Father. The same could apply to Old Catholics, but the likelihood of them asking is remote.
8. The priest does not know it yet, but he’s being transferred this summer. If the bishop says, “Yes” and then transfers him, it will look like he transferred him as some kind of punishment for being a Traditionalist. People love conspiracies.

There can be real inconveniences that have to be overcome. Ultimately, it’s the bishop who has to deal with the consequences, if something goes wrong. None of these conditions constitute a ban.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

None of these conditions constitute a ban.

I agree that they are not a ban. But the Bishop could certainly use them as an excuse in order to effectively ban the EF because the Bishop is diametrically opposed to the EF. It is unfortunate that priests cannot rely on SP to protect them if the Bishop is against the EF for reasons other than the ones you listed.

I think this is one reason why the SSPX wants greater autonomy from the local Bishops, so that they can work in a diocese were the EF has been banned in deed (but not in word). Such Bishops would never allow the SSPX into the diocese, so the faithful have no way to get to an EF Mass short of long travel.

• PAX