Brushed off by my Bishop

[otjm]

One thing that makes matters worse is that my Bishop is an incurable liberal, and, to top it off, he’s only sixty years old, which means we’ve got him for another fifteen years at least.

One thing that may work to my advantage is that my Bishop is never around. He says mass publicly only twice a year, if we’re lucky, and even his priests go weeks at a time without seeing him. This is strange, since our Diocese isn’t geographically very large, and the priest shortage hasn’t hit us as hard as other Diocese across the world–not that we have any young priests, only plenty of older ones, which may also work to my advantage.

The one thing I just can’t understand is how they feel they can just overlook the clause in the MP that says the Bishop must provide a mass for a Latin mass community. How do they justify themselves?

Also, I’m not sure about how to go about finding traditional books and vestments at a reasonable price by myself.

Part of it could well be that no one has established that there is a Latin Mass community of any given size in any given location. All too often, there are a lot of presumptions and precious few facts.

Further, unless you have been a fly on the wall in meetings of the clergy with or without the bishop, you are presuming that nothing is being done. Most of this is going to have to originate in parishes; and that means starting with a priest (preferrably) who is interested himself in saying the Mass; he can start with private Masses to try to build up a stable group.

But if your bishop is of whatever persuasion - liberal, ignorant of people’s wishes, or whatever, there is no particular reason to presume that he or anyone else in the chnacery is going to go out and beat the bushes begging people to come forward and state their desires.

The presumption is that it will be extrordinary - that is, not the majority; and even the Pope in his letter says that: “The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin Language; niether of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly reamin the ordinary form of the Roman rite, not only because of juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.”

 

[CapaxDei]

One thing that may work to my advantage is that my Bishop is never around. He says mass publicly only twice a year, if we’re lucky, and even his priests go weeks at a time without seeing him. This is strange, since our Diocese isn’t geographically very large

That is strange. Our bishop, it seems to me, hardly ever celebrates Mass on Sunday at the cathedral, because he is making the rounds at parishes. He offered Mass at my parish last year. That was very cool. (He appeared to have written his homily out in full. I don’t know how this man does it. I can’t imagine being a bishop.)

We have the Latin Mass every Sunday in one parish, and twice a month at another chapel. He seems to be open to making it more widely available, if there is demand.

 

[Silver_Thread]

Our Bishop in Greensburg was presented with a petition from 400 parishoners who wanted the Tridentine Mass. He refused, citing among other things, that the Priests’ Council did not want it. We had 5 priest’s available to do it. Soooooo be patient. We’re still working it out without getting our shorts in a twist…Prayer and Fasting are the ticket.

 

[Orionthehunter]

After the MP was issued, I wrote by Bishop to ask for a Tridentine Mass in our Diocese. I didn’t ask his approval, since that is not needed, but rather that he aid me in my quest to find a priest in my Diocese who can say one.

His answer was very negative. He replied that he believed that language didn’t matter, and that it is imperative that people are able to understand the mass. He also reminded me that the Novus Ordo is the regular form of the mass, and that the college of Bishops would meet to “discuss” the meaning of the MP, and further clarify it.

So, no tridentine mass for me, other than the one eight hours away in another Diocese!

I’m just foaming at the mouth with anger right now–I wonder if he even read the Motu Proprio?

First, with regard to what I have bolded, you have no right to demand anything of your Bishop. He doesn’t answer to you but to the Church.

Second, do you think that “foaming at the mouth” is the work of Jesus or Satan?

Third, why wonder if he has read it. I’m sure that he will have read it by the time that they have the meeting of the USCCB. And if he has read it, he might not yet be prepared to act on it. My particular Bishop has a standard practice to move slowly by gathering information and praying about it. He wants to always be sure that he is acting at the instigation of the Holy Spirit and not people or his own biases. If you had written my good and holy Bishop, it is entirely possible you might not have even gotten a response as quick as you did. He stresses being correct more than timeliness. And, he finds “right” in prayer and study.

Fourth, you need to be more patient. The Church doesn’t always move as fast as we like but She always moves with due deliberation. We have to remember that it took 100’s of years for the Bishops and Priests to understand and properly implement previous Councils (i.e. Trent). The Church is still trying to discern all the Holy Spirit gave us in Vatican II. I’m always struck by people who want the Church to be their way and they want it now. We should just want it the way Christ wants it, on His terms, and in His timeframe.

 

[latinmasslover]

After the MP was issued, I wrote by Bishop to ask for a Tridentine Mass in our Diocese. I didn’t ask his approval, since that is not needed, but rather that he aid me in my quest to find a priest in my Diocese who can say one.

His answer was very negative. He replied that he believed that language didn’t matter, and that it is imperative that people are able to understand the mass. He also reminded me that the Novus Ordo is the regular form of the mass, and that the college of Bishops would meet to “discuss” the meaning of the MP, and further clarify it.

So, no tridentine mass for me, other than the one eight hours away in another Diocese!

I’m just foaming at the mouth with anger right now–I wonder if he even read the Motu Proprio?

I’m so sorry to hear that. Pray for judas, I mean, your bishop. He obviously isn’t a very informed Catholic if he makes an issue of the language…that is a small issue in regards to the TLM. A priest from our diocese (a couple of hours away) read the MP in the original Latin and told us what it said, because he knew the college of Bishops would “interpret” it for us, meaning we wouldn’t get the whole truth of the matter. As to the novus ordo being the “ordinary” form, that won’t be for long.

 

[otjm]

As to the novus ordo being the “ordinary” form, that won’t be for long.

Considering that the OF is the Mass for about 99+% of Catholics world wide, I think that is a bit of an overstatement.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I’m so sorry to hear that. Pray for judas, I mean, your bishop. He **obviously isn’t a very informed Catholic **if he makes an issue of the language…that is a small issue in regards to the TLM. A priest from our diocese (a couple of hours away) read the MP in the original Latin and told us what it said, because he knew the college of Bishops would “interpret” it for us, meaning we wouldn’t get the whole truth of the matter. As to the novus ordo being the “ordinary” form, that won’t be for long.

This is an offense against the truth and grave matter. You don’t know this Bishop and you did not hear his words/see his letter directly. As Catholics, we are to be especially be careful about accusations against Bishops as respect for the office. It is they (not you) who have the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. It is they that have been placed as Shepherds in their diocese. To claim any Bishop isn’t informed about the Faith is to be so devoid of fact as to be offensive and objectively grave.

III. Offenses Against Truth

2475 Christ’s disciples have “put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” By “putting away falsehood,” they are to “put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander.”

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

 

[Antithesis]

I like the language of our Church, which is Latin.

Church > Country

I like the language of Catholic church = Universal church = Every language. (Latin is just the fad of the day as greek was before it.)

 

[Scotty_PGH]

(Latin is just the fad of the day as greek was before it.)

 

[Sr_Sally]

A priest from our diocese (a couple of hours away) read the MP in the original Latin and told us what it said, because he knew the college of Bishops would “interpret” it for us, meaning we wouldn’t get the whole truth of the matter.

So his “interpretation”/translation is more trustworthy than that of your Bishop? Or someone else’s Bishop, whom you just called a Judas? Certainly we all sin and fall short, but you seem to have fallen just as far as any Bishop you accuse to be name-calling and distrusting like this.

 

[markadm]

So his “interpretation”/translation is more trustworthy than that of your Bishop? Or someone else’s Bishop, whom you just called a Judas? Certainly we all sin and fall short, but you seem to have fallen just as far as any Bishop you accuse to be name-calling and distrusting like this.

Whilst I agree it is palpably incorrect to call a Bishop “Judas”, there are many instances already documented of Bishops misunderstanding the motu proprio, and acting ultra vires, that is outwith their authority.

 

[GerardP]

First, with regard to what I have bolded, you have no right to demand anything of your Bishop. He doesn’t answer to you but to the Church.

Everyone has the right to demand orthodoxy from every Catholic. No bishop is exempt from error because he wears a mitre.

Second, do you think that “foaming at the mouth” is the work of Jesus or Satan?

Righteous Anger. Jesus didn’t spare the whip or harsh words when he called the Church leaders “vipers” and worse.

Third, why wonder if he has read it. I’m sure that he will have read it by the time that they have the meeting of the USCCB.

I think the original poster is wondering if the bishop bothered to read the motu proprio because the reply of the bishop was negative.

The USSCB has no power over an individual bishop’s diocese. They don’t vote on what to do. The bishop answers to the Pope. Period.

And if he has read it, he might not yet be prepared to act on it. My particular Bishop has a standard practice to move slowly by gathering information and praying about it. He wants to always be sure that he is acting at the instigation of the Holy Spirit and not people or his own biases.

With regards to the motu proprio, the bishop doesn’t need to wait for promptings from the Holy Ghost. He needs to obey the Pope on this matter and not get in the way.

If you had written my good and holy Bishop, it is entirely possible you might not have even gotten a response as quick as you did. He stresses being correct more than timeliness. And, he finds “right” in prayer and study.

That would at least be better than a response that is in implicit defiance of the wishes of the Holy Father and the law of the Church.

Fourth, you need to be more patient. The Church doesn’t always move as fast as we like but She always moves with due deliberation.

The Church has already moved. This bishop’s response is not in accord with what the Holy Father has proscribed.

We have to remember that it took 100’s of years for the Bishops and Priests to understand and properly implement previous Councils (i.e. Trent).

Previous Councils were drawn up to address crises most of the time. VII was a pastoral council. The fruits of which are not guaranteed by the Holy Ghost.

The Church is still trying to discern all the Holy Spirit gave us in Vatican II.

What do you mean by this? The Holy Ghost doesn’t “give” anything in a Council. He protects councils from formal errors. That is all.

I’m always struck by people who want the Church to be their way and they want it now. We should just want it the way Christ wants it, on His terms, and in His timeframe.

A lot of bishops want to change the Church and they have no interest in what Christ may want.

 

[GerardP]

Whilst I agree it is palpably incorrect to call a Bishop “Judas”, there are many instances already documented of Bishops misunderstanding the motu proprio, and acting ultra vires, that is outwith their authority.

Judas WAS a bishop. The original poster didn’t name his bishop so there is no issue of detraction however remote since the bishop was acting in his official capacity and not drinking in an alley where we was witnessed.

Pope St.Pius X warned us in the opening paragraphs of Pascendi that the enemies of the Church were within the Church and among the ranks of the priesthood itself.

I’m sure many of these bishops know exactly what the motu proprio means and they simply want to limit any exercise of Roman authority over them.

 

[markadm]

Judas WAS a bishop.

lol. I think I just had a brain-outage – I meant to say “palpably rude”. I wasn’t thinking about who Judas was, but rather that it’s not fair generally to equate any serving Bishop with the betrayal that Judas exhibited. Time for my bed, I think.

By the way, I agree with you when you say:

What do you mean by [the Church is still trying to discern all the Holy Spirit gave us in Vatican II]? The Holy Ghost doesn’t “give” anything in a Council. He protects councils from formal errors. That is all.

–particularly as Vatican II was not juridical in nature, there are no new dogmas to be “learned” or understood. Talk about “hijacking” the Council!

 

[GerardP]

So his “interpretation”/translation is more trustworthy than that of your Bishop? Or someone else’s Bishop, whom you just called a Judas? Certainly we all sin and fall short, but you seem to have fallen just as far as any Bishop you accuse to be name-calling and distrusting like this.

No bishop has been named. It could very well be that his bishop is an enemy of Christ. No bishop is an infallible “interpretor” of Latin.

Cardinal Ottaviani once remarked that the first act of collegiality between the Pope and the bishops in union with him was to run from the Garden of Gethsemane and hide from the Passion.

There’s a certain Cardinal around today who is known for committing flat out lies with regards to Catholic history, papal statements and completely making a mockery of Vatican II documents and other official statements to support his heretical theology.

A good priest in the “trenches” is often more trustworthy than a modernist liberal bishop.

 

[GerardP]

lol. I think I just had a brain-outage – I meant to say “palpably rude”. I wasn’t thinking about who Judas was, but rather that it’s not fair generally to equate any serving Bishop with the betrayal that Judas exhibited. Time for my bed, I think.

By the way, I agree with you when you say:

–particularly as Vatican II was not juridical in nature, there are no new dogmas to be “learned” or understood. Talk about “hijacking” the Council!

I’ve recently been reading books by the movers and shakers at Vatican II. I think if John XXIII had lived actually been able to get his way, the hijacking would not have been so severe.

If Pope Benedict made some of the statements that John XXIII made in 1961 or if he said things as clearly as Cardinal Augustin Bea said with regards to Ecumenism, people would be calling for his head today. Oh to have “liberals” like Roncalli and Bea today! They would be considered traditionalists.

 

[GerardP]

This is an offense against the truth and grave matter. You don’t know this Bishop and you did not hear his words/see his letter directly.

Since he didn’t name the bishop, there is no offense. Odds are he knows the bishop better than you or I.

As Catholics, we are to be especially be careful about accusations against Bishops as respect for the office.

But what do you do when the bishop doesn’t respect his own office?

It is they (not you) who have the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

That means the bishop has a grave responsibility and any Catholic should if necessary rebuke a prelate who has strayed.

Holy Orders doesn’t make anyone more Catholic than any other baptized Catholic.

It is they that have been placed as Shepherds in their diocese.

Shepherds have often become wolves.

To claim any Bishop isn’t informed about the Faith is to be so devoid of fact as to be offensive and objectively grave.

Not true. We have had cases of unworthy Popes being incredibly ignorant of the faith. We’ve also had good Popes make mistakes about the faith.

Bishops can also be flat out enemies of the Church depending on their behavior.

 

[rtconstant]

Everyone has the right to demand orthodoxy from every Catholic. No bishop is exempt from error because he wears a mitre.

Sure except we’re not talking about orthodoxy we’re talking about the bishop’s responce to one person’s request for a mass of personal preference. You can consider the responce to be fair or unfair but don’t question the orthodoxy of the Lord’s annoited over such as this.

Righteous Anger. Jesus didn’t spare the whip or harsh words when he called the Church leaders “vipers” and worse.

drama.

think the original poster is wondering if the bishop bothered to read the motu proprio because the reply of the bishop was negative.

Who can say.

CB has no power over an individual bishop’s diocese. They don’t vote on what to do. The bishop answers to the Pope. Period.

Yup.

With regards to the motu proprio, the bishop doesn’t need to wait for promptings from the Holy Ghost. He needs to obey the Pope on this matter and not get in the way.

Not your call. Also not your place to judge the motivations of one given their authority by Christ. It is very correct for a bishop to seek divine guidance in how to advise his priests on the implementation of the MP. This document was kept vague on details for a reason. Every diocese has different needs and capabilities. While a priest can independantly perform his private masses there are many things he may very well need the assistance or permission of his bishop for regarding his public and Lord’s Day masses. The Pope understands this.

That would at least be better than a response that is in implicit defiance of the wishes of the Holy Father and the law of the Church.

You assume a great deal.

The Church has already moved. This bishop’s response is not in accord with what the Holy Father has proscribed.

Not your call.

Previous Councils were drawn up to address crises most of the time. VII was a pastoral council. The fruits of which are not guaranteed by the Holy Ghost.

Again not your call.

What do you mean by this? The Holy Ghost doesn’t “give” anything in a Council. He protects councils from formal errors. That is all.

More accurately protection from error is the LEAST He does at councils.

A lot of bishops want to change the Church and they have no interest in what Christ may want.

You got a mighty big brush, I’m just not sure how much paint you’ve got.

 

[otjm]

Whilst I agree it is palpably incorrect to call a Bishop “Judas”, there are many instances already documented of Bishops misunderstanding the motu proprio, and acting ultra vires, that is outwith their authority.

Perhaps there is new of a bishop specifically saying he will not follow the MP, but I haven’t seen it. There have been some calls that may be more due to a bishop not having read the MP than anything else, and one instance of a bishop calling off a specific Mass, with language that could indicate he did not like the whole issue. However, I have seen nothing documented that has indicated that any specific bishop has said he will not comply. Perhaps you have something? If so, please make it available.

However, whether or not there has been anything actually done that is outside the authority of the bishop has not been documetned that I have seen. Again, do you have specific instances? It is easy to say that if a bishop has been unresponsive, that he is acting outside his authority; however, a careful reading of the MP would suggest that any request to a bishop to make the EF available would be starting at the wrong place; the MP seems to say this starts at the local - parish - level.

 

[otjm]

lol. I think I just had a brain-outage – I meant to say “palpably rude”. I wasn’t thinking about who Judas was, but rather that it’s not fair generally to equate any serving Bishop with the betrayal that Judas exhibited. Time for my bed, I think.

By the way, I agree with you when you say:

–particularly as Vatican II was not juridical in nature, there are no new dogmas to be “learned” or understood. Talk about “hijacking” the Council!

Oh. I guess the fools and idiots who wrote the documents of Vatican 2 had no clue when they named several of them Dogmatic Constitutions. But then let’s keep the thread to the topic at hand, which is the MP, not Vatican 2