Calgary Bishop Suspends Latin Mass

[JReducation]

In this long-running thread up in Liturgy and Sacraments: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=401196
the consensus is that you are incorrect on this point. A bishop cannot overrule the CDW on matters of liturgy.

Father Zuhlsdorf writes,
the Holy Father is the Supreme Legislator in the Church. He has delegated his authority to govern matters liturgical, the “discipline of the sacraments” to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. After the Holy Father, this Congregation is the highest authority when it comes to Latin Rite worship and discipline of the sacraments. A local priest in a parish, or bishop in a diocese might be able to set aside something from the territorial conference of bishops, but they cannot ignore what a Congregation does. When the Congregation determines something, it is no longer anyone else’s call (except the Holy Father).

Redemptionis Sacramentum is a juridical document of the CDWDS which had the approval of the Roman Pontiff. The same Congregation has reaffirmed with specific reference to H1N1 what RS said.

But let’s keep boht my statement thi sone above in context. The bishop is not changing the law. He is dispensing with something for a period of time. As long as it is short-term, he can do so. It is only to make a permanent change that he cannot overrule the Congregation.

While we are at involved in this topic, observe that this only applies to parish priests and bishops, not to abbots, priors and ministers. There is a precedent in history, where there has been a dispensation from the customary manner of distributing cmmunion. Those dispensations were granted by abbots, priors and ministers in orders of pontifical rights with solemn vows and canonically elected ordinaries.

If this were to go to a tribunal, the argument would be something likie this. The bishop is dispensing with something for a particual reason for a short-term; therefore he his not changing the rules. The bishop has the same juridical authority as an abbot, minister and prior. There is a long history of dispensations granded by ordinaries and their authority to do so has not been abbrogated; therefore, the bishop’s authority should be sustained.

Please understand, that I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the bishop. I’m trying to drive home a more important point, we are reacting here by taking the side of the FSSP and criticizing the bishop, when in fact the bishop and the FSSP are part of the Church. As members of the body it is our duty to respond like Mary did at the cross, by growing in self-restraint, tempering the temptation to throw stones and remembering that we are all members of the Church and if we begin to throw stones, complain, whine, attack, judge, assign guilt, we are really doing it to ourselves. Every sin that a Catholic commits is a sin of the Church. The members of the body are not inseparable.

What is more consistent with the universal call to holliness is to ask ourselves what is really happening? Is there a precedent? Was that precedent good and for the good? Did it work? Can it be applied here? If this works, then we go that way. If it does not, then we must sit and ask, what are the alternatives that we can suggest.

We have to be very careful not to take such a rigid position that the law says this and if you don’t do it that way, we throw mud at you, we put distance between you and us becasue we are right and you are wrong, we condemn and judge you. This was the way that the Jews practiced law during Jesus’ time. It was called the law of Justice. In theory it worked well, if you’re wrong, you get punished. If you’re in error, you get left out. If you sin, you get stoned. But in practice it did not work out. It did not provide salvation to the people of Israel. Only Jesus did. Jesus is the perfect example of the unjust law. I have done no wrong, but I lay down my life.

We mus tlay down our lives with the Church for those who have sinned, especially when we believe that we have done no wrong. The divine design in these cases is that we find the holy way out, not the legal way. Often they go togethet. But as we see in the scriptures, not always. The holy way out of this situation is to assume the silence of Mary at the foot of the cross, where she demonstrates integrity, instead of indignation. She demonstrates acceptance, instead of rejection of injustice. She shows her motherhood toward the word, not her rejection ofthe sinner. Mary integrates the best virtues to work with us for the the achivement of her son’s plans, without one word of condemnation.

We do not need to pull out laws and begin to analyze them so that we can find some way to entrap a bishop, especially when that law can be challenged in tribunal. That would be a nice mess. Why make a bigger mess when we must need to work with the one that we have?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

But let’s keep boht my statement thi sone above in context. The bishop is not changing the law. He is dispensing with something for a period of time. As long as it is short-term, he can do so. It is only to make a permanent change that he cannot overrule the Congregation.

Can you provide a cite for this, please? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but everywhere else, people who are knowledgeable are saying that he cannot do this, full stop. And I still find it extremely draconian, cruel even, that he has suspended all EF masses, even when the priests involved have said they are happy to just do a spiritual communion.

 

[JReducation]

Can you provide a cite for this, please? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but everywhere else, people who are knowledgeable are saying that he cannot do this, full stop. And I still find it extremely draconian, cruel even, that he has suspended all EF masses, even when the priests involved have said they are happy to just do a spiritual communion.

Let’s use Canon Law

** Can. 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. **

Canon 381 makes two things very clear. First it is clear that the bishop is the supreme authority in the diocese. It also makes clear that such authority can be limited in areas where the pope or Congregations authorized to speak for the pope make decrees.

This is what people are hanging on to, the second part. What they are not seeing, because it’s not there, is that a bishop can make pastoral judgment calls that are an exception to the rule. This not forbidden by canon 381.

But here is another interesting law.

**Can. 397 §2. A bishop can visit members of religious institutes of pontifical right and their houses only in the cases expressed in law. **

In practice this means that the bishop cannot enter my religious house. He cannot call into question my judgments concerning liturgical practices that are not heretical or sacrilegious or invalidate the mass. He has to respect the fact that I, as an Ordinary, just like him, even though I’m not a priest, but am a superior, I can dispense with certain rules for pastoral reasons and am only obliged to inform Church authorities, not ask for permission, because I’m dispensing, not abolishing for good.

In a trial, over a case such as the one that we’re discussing can lawyers can easily bring up the practice that others with equal ordinary authority to a bishop have the freedom to make pastoral exceptions and have used them without impunity, why not a bishop? They, the lawyers would argue that the bishop has the same rights to rule his parish with the same degree of autonomy from the Sacred Congregation as religious do from the bishop, provided that they comply with the faith and inform Rome.

One more.

** Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority. **

A canon lawyer would argue the that decree on communion in the hand and Summorum Pontificum are neither procedural or penal laws, which they are not. They are liturgical laws and therefore in a different category. The only law that a bishop cannot dispense is a procedural or penal one. We must remember that dispense is not the same as suspend indefinitely.

All of this being said, I do not encourage anyone to take this issue and turn it into a canonical court room. As I have state above, we are one Church, one body, and we get nothing out of turning something like this into an international crisis that has the potential to involve a bishop, the FSSP, and the Sacred Congregation in court in a law suit. In the end, even if the bishop were to lose the suit, he can win. All he has to do is ask the FSSP to leave his diocese, because their presence is disruptive to the life of his diocese. There is nothing or no Sacred Congregation in Rome that can stop him. This is a divine right given to him by Christ to welcome them or ask them to leave. It’s his Church, not the Church of the FSSP. When they decided to become a society, they forfeited their membership in any Church.

By reactiong to the bishop, rather than working with him, we create a situation of conflict in which the FSSP is the most likely victim and thy are the ones who have been the most quiet. Let’s keep this spiritual and see ourselves not as opponents, but as one body looking for answer that helps most people. Always, my brothers strive for unity and avoid reactions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[dans0622]

** Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church.** He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.

A canon lawyer would argue the that decree on communion in the hand and Summorum Pontificum are neither procedural or penal laws, which they are not. They are liturgical laws and therefore in a different category. The only law that a bishop cannot dispense is a procedural or penal one. We must remember that dispense is not the same as suspend indefinitely.

All of this being said, I do not encourage anyone to take this issue and turn it into a canonical court room. As I have state above, we are one Church, one body, and we get nothing out of turning something like this into an international crisis that has the potential to involve a bishop, the FSSP, and the Sacred Congregation in court in a law suit. In the end, even if the bishop were to lose the suit, he can win. All he has to do is ask the FSSP to leave his diocese, because their presence is disruptive to the life of his diocese. There is nothing or no Sacred Congregation in Rome that can stop him. This is a divine right given to him by Christ to welcome them or ask them to leave. It’s his Church, not the Church of the FSSP. When they decided to become a society, they forfeited their membership in any Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Hello Br. JR,

Two points. First, I don’t see how this action of the bishop can be called a dispensation. A dispensation is a relaxation of a law. But, taking away legitimate options (as in, the manner of receiving Communion) is not a relaxation of any law–it is a restriction. Besides that, a dispensation is only given when someone asks for it, either implicitly or explicitly, and no one is ever required to make use of a granted dispensation. For these reasons, I think the category of “dispensation” doesn’t apply here.

It seems to me that the only category for this action of the bishop is that it is some kind of new norm, either of executive or legislative power. And, as such actions of a lower legislator/executive authority can not contradict higher “law” (the GIRM, Redemptionis sacramentum, etc.), the validity of this directive is on very thin canonical ice, if it is on any ice at all.

Second, regarding the FSSP–their community is at the center of this issue but I’m sure there are many other Catholics in the diocese who prefer to receive Communion on the tongue. They are also involved in this and have a legitimate complaint.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[JReducation]

Hello Br. JR,

Two points. First, I don’t see how this action of the bishop can be called a dispensation. A dispensation is a relaxation of a law. But, taking away legitimate options (as in, the manner of receiving Communion) is not a relaxation of any law–it is a restriction. Besides that, a dispensation is only given when someone asks for it, either implicitly or explicitly, and no one is ever required to make use of a granted dispensation. For these reasons, I think the category of “dispensation” doesn’t apply here.

It seems to me that the only category for this action of the bishop is that it is some kind of new norm, either of executive or legislative power. And, as such actions of a lower legislator/executive authority can not contradict higher “law” (the GIRM, Redemptionis sacramentum, etc.), the validity of this directive is on very thin canonical ice, if it is on any ice at all.

Second, regarding the FSSP–their community is at the center of this issue but I’m sure there are many other Catholics in the diocese who prefer to receive Communion on the tongue. They are also involved in this and have a legitimate complaint.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

Hi Dan,

I’m just throwing in her how, if this ever made it to a tribunal can be argued from the peaspective that communion in the hand is an indult, which is the same as a dispensation. There was the seond part that law that said that a bishop can grant a dispensation even from a decree from the Holy Father, and all he has to do is inform the Holy See. The dispenasation stays in force until the Holy Father recinds it, fh he chooseas to do.

In Canon law a dispensation does not need to be saud. The herarchyh and the maor superors of religious men have Divine authority to mpose disensations in their territories to their sujectecs. Provided that it can first be establish that the bishop is dispensing with the rule for holy communion on the tongue and that he has communicated his inted for a short-term dispensation, if it is chalenged in court, the bishop cannot be chllenged for dispensin without being asked to do. There aer too many norms in canno law that allow bisops and religious superiors of men to do this.

That takes me to my mantra. To avoid all the avoid, which is a waste of time and money, the faithful woudl be better served to find a way of working with the bishp withing wha teh Church in that dicoese has in place. I’m very serious when I kee bringing up the cross. It’s eay for uas to throw the first stone at a bishop or religios spuperior. IT is more difficult to behave like Mary, at the foot of the cross. Mary exemplifies dignity and unity with the sinners,until theend… What she did was to function as a reasonabel Biblical Catholikc.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[Brendan]

But let’s keep boht my statement thi sone above in context. The bishop is not changing the law. He is dispensing with something for a period of time.

Br JR,

We went over this before. This is not a dispendation. A dispensation is the removal of a Canonical obligation or removed the Canonical penalty that would otherwise be normative for an action.

There is no obligation here to remove. Rather, it is the removal of a Canonical Right. Which is a completely different animal.

Would you say that if I recieved a dispenation from my obligation to attend Mass on Sunday, but attended anyway, that I would be engaged in sin?

Or if I recieved a dispensation from abstaining on a Lenten Friday, but abstained anyway, that I would be sinning by eating cheese periogies instead of a Big Mac?

No, of course not. So either

1. This cannot be a dispensation, since there is no obligation being removed

or

1. If it IS a dispensation, they acting against the dispensation (ie recieving on the tounge) would not be disobedient.

 

[Brendan]

Here is the definition of a Dispensation from “The Modern Catholic Dictionary” by (+Servant of God) John Harden S.J.

Dispensation - A relaxation of the Church’s Law in a particular case, It is neither an abrogation of the law, or an excuse for not observe ring the law, but a release from the requirement to observe the law, temporarily or permanently, by competent legal authority.
The Pope can dispense from all purely ecclesiastical laws. Other Church authorities can dispense from the laws they, or their predecessors have passed. Only those can dispense from the laws of a higher superior who are granted the power, either by the Church’s general legislation or by a special delegation.

• Modern Catholic Dictionary - John Hardon, S.J.

So given that the law in question originated at the CDWDS, where did the bishop get the authority to dispense from this law. Is it part of the Church’s general legislation, or by a special delegation.

In addition, it is clear it is simply a release from the requirement to observe a specific law, but does not (as I pointed out earlier) prohibit the one dispensed from observing the law if they so choose.

 

[Seamus_L]

I think the faithful in Calgary should make an appeal to the Bishop, and if they’re unsuccessful, they should then take their case to Pope Benedict. As Traditional Catholics we believe that the Holy Father and not the Bishop is the final authority.

 

[JReducation]

I think the faithful in Calgary should make an appeal to the Bishop, and if they’re unsuccessful, they should then take their case to Pope Benedict. As Traditional Catholics we believe that the Holy Father and not the Bishop is the final authority.

That’s just not the belief of traditional Catholics. That’s the way it has been since the beginning. But hat being said, it does not mean that the Pope will hear the case. Pope Benedict does not like to get involved in diocesan matters. He has often said that these are not problems for the pope to solve, but they are for the local bishops to solve and that does not work it sould follow the appeals process until it goes to him. He will not take on any case that goes directly to him, as it is not his job to solve the pboblems of the local Churches. That’s the purpose of deaneries, diacsteries, Bishop’s Conferences, Sacred Congregations, all of what we call the subsidial agencies, to avoid bothering the pope with these matterrs so that he can atend to his preffered causes and business thagt affects everyone, not just one bishop and one community.

I have explained this hundreds of times on several posts and threads. Life is not as easy as writing the pope a letter. I tis much better to deal kindley and respectuflly the the chaceloor.

Fraernally,

Br JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

UPDATE
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/12/calgary-communion-controversy-concluded/

The website of the FSSP parish in Calgary announces that the “suspension” on celebration of the older form of Holy Mass has been lifted.

There is a small note on the main page.

http://www.wdtprs.com/images/09_12_08_Calgary.jpg
There does not seem to be any such announcement on the site of the Diocese of Calgary.

It seems that this resolved peacefully, considering the earlier trajectory of the disagreement.

God Bless all involved, whoever and wherever they were.

 

[JReducation]

I’m very happy to hear that this is a closed issue now. But reading comments from other sites, I am disappointed that no one gives any credit to the bishop for the resolution. It takes two parties to resolve a problem. In this case, one of them is the bishop. He could have made this a big issue and taken it up to Rome, but he didn’t. Instead, those involved, chose to solve it at home, where it belongs. Let us give credit to our bishops and the clergy too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

I’m very happy to hear that this is a closed issue now. But reading comments from other sites, I am disappointed that no one gives any credit to the bishop for the resolution. It takes two parties to resolve a problem. In this case, one of them is the bishop. He could have made this a big issue and taken it up to Rome, but he didn’t. Instead, those involved, chose to solve it at home, where it belongs.

I wasn’t aware that we have enough information to determine how this issue was resolved. Do you know something that Fr. Z does not?

 

[JReducation]

I wasn’t aware that we have enough information to determine how this issue was resolved. Do you know something that Fr. Z does not?

I know the same thing that Fr. Z does. I know how the sytem works. Fr. Z pointed to the resolution as posted on the FSSP website. We both pointed to the fact that the resolution was a peaceful and quiet one. This would not be possible were it not for the mutual cooperatioin between the bishop and the FSSP. Which is the way that these things should be settled.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rlg94086]

I know the same thing that Fr. Z does. I know how the sytem works. Fr. Z pointed to the resolution as posted on the FSSP website. We both pointed to the fact that the resolution was a peaceful and quiet one. This would not be possible were it not for the mutual cooperatioin between the bishop and the FSSP. Which is the way that these things should be settled.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

No offense, Brother, but weren’t you basically telling people to sit down and shut up because the Bishop has the authority to change the reception of the Blessed Sacrament in the EF?

I’m pleased that the Bishop relented, and thank God that the FSSP were able to resume their Mass schedule. However, I’m not going to give the Bishop undue praise since he was the one that erred (IMHO) in the first place by overreacting to the swine flu epidemic.

Also, at this point, there is an absence of details regarding the resolution. We don’t know whether any appeals were made to the Vatican (or Canadian Council of Bishops, if there is such a thing) and someone had a talk with the Bishop.

 

[JReducation]

No offense, Brother, but weren’t you basically telling people to sit down and shut up because the Bishop has the authority to change the reception of the Blessed Sacrament in the EF?

I don’t think I ever I told anyone to shut up. I would never be so rude. I did say that the bishop of any diocese has the authority to dispense from a pastoral practice, which remains the truth.

I’m pleased that the Bishop relented, and thank God that the FSSP were able to resume their Mass schedule. However, I’m not going to give the Bishop undue praise since he was the one that erred (IMHO) in the first place by overreacting to the swine flu epidemic.

This is where all of us must always be instruments of peace. We must give people credit for working toward solutions and arriving at them. To hold back on the credit that those involved are due is to hold on to a grudge. This is very contrary to what our holy Father Francis teaches us is the true message of the Gospel. The message of the Gospel is to welcome the Good News and to put aside the issues of the past and move on. We must be a community of life. A community of life thrives when we embrace the good and lay aside the hurts of the past.

Also, at this point, there is an absence of details regarding the resolution. We don’t know whether any appeals were made to the Vatican (or Canadian Council of Bishops, if there is such a thing) and someone had a talk with the Bishop.

There is a Canadian Bishops’ Conference. But like any conference of bishops, they do not have authority over individual bishops and their dioceses, except in those cases where they have agreed to do so. Whether someone had a talk with the bishop or not, the fact remains that he could have taken this to the tribunal in Rome and he did not. Again, he deserves credit for dealing with it quietly and peacefully, regardless of whether there was mediation or not. We have to give credit to people for doing good. How can we claim to be instruments of peace?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t think I ever I told anyone to shut up. I would never be so rude. I did say that the bishop of any diocese has the authority to dispense from a pastoral practice, which remains the truth.

This is where all of us must always be instruments of peace. We must give people credit for working toward solutions and arriving at them. To hold back on the credit that those involved are due is to hold on to a grudge. This is very contrary to what our holy Father Francis teaches us is the true message of the Gospel. The message of the Gospel is to welcome the Good News and to put aside the issues of the past and move on. We must be a community of life. A community of life thrives when we embrace the good and lay aside the hurts of the past.

There is a Canadian Bishops’ Conference. But like any conference of bishops, they do not have authority over individual bishops and their dioceses, except in those cases where they have agreed to do so. Whether someone had a talk with the bishop or not, the fact remains that he could have taken this to the tribunal in Rome and he did not. Again, he deserves credit for dealing with it quietly and peacefully, regardless of whether there was mediation or not. We have to give credit to people for doing good. How can we claim to be instruments of peace?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Understood. I never said the Canadian Bishop’s Conference had authority. I only said that someone may have talked to him. I’m fairly sure Bishops discuss issues with each other and listen to each other’s counsel. At least, I hope this is the case.

To be clear, I am not holding a grudge towards the Bishop and do give him credit for reversing his decision peacefully. I just said I wouldn’t give him undue praise since he created the mess in the first place. Thankfully, he was humble enough to see his error (regardless of whether it was from the counsel of other Bishops).

 

[Ockham]

I’m pleased that the Bishop relented, and thank God that the FSSP were able to resume their Mass schedule. However, I’m not going to give the Bishop undue praise since he was the one that erred (IMHO) in the first place by overreacting to the swine flu epidemic.

+1

There is no evidence to support the notion COTT spreads diseases or viruses anymore than CITH. Actually, I’ve heard convincing arguments suggeesting the opposite. Perhaps we should suspend CITH until this ‘pandemic’ subsides. Oh, the horror…

 

[JReducation]

Understood. I never said the Canadian Bishop’s Conference had authority. I only said that someone may have talked to him. I’m fairly sure Bishops discuss issues with each other and listen to each other’s counsel. At least, I hope this is the case.

To be clear, I am not holding a grudge towards the Bishop and do give him credit for reversing his decision peacefully. I just said I wouldn’t give him undue praise since he created the mess in the first place. Thankfully, he was humble enough to see his error (regardless of whether it was from the counsel of other Bishops).

I agree with you 100%. Regardless of how someone arrives at a peaceful resolution to a problem, we must always focus on the fact that the problem is resolved and that those involved showed good will. This is not always easy when we believe that we’re right, if you know what I mean.

Unfortunately, this whole swine flu thing is so confusing, because the data is inconsistent. This does not help. In the parish where I volunteer we had three funerals this year due to swine flu. I guess that it can be more prevalent in some places than it is in others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ockham]

In the parish where I volunteer we had three funerals this year due to swine flu. I guess that it can be more prevalent in some places than it is in others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

How do people in your parish receive the Blessed Sacrament?

 

[JReducation]

How do people in your parish receive the Blessed Sacrament?

Both ways, tongue or hand. It’s up to them. The brothers receive on the tongue, but that was in-house decision that we made. We receive on the tongue when we attend mass at a parish, not at the conventual mass. At the conventual mass we follow our own Franciscan tradition that dates back to the early 1300s.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF