Father. Regarding Art. 5, §1 what does the part I underlined actually mean? Does this mean a group of old people who predate Vatican 2 or what?
Art. 5, §1 ** In parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists**, the parish priest should willingly accede to their requests to celebrate Holy Mass according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal. He should ensure that the good of these members of the faithful is harmonized with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.
It is an interesting question.
No, it does not mean that the people’s ages must all predate Vatican II. Neither would they, strictly, have to comply with the requirements set forth in
Quattuor abhinc annos, as in the days when I had pastoral responsibility for an indult community.
However,
Summorum Pontificum leaves undetermined what number constitutes a “stable group” relative to the pastor acceding. The reason for that is fairly obvious given the varying realities of pastoral care across the globe.
There is the maxim that permissions are to be given a broad interpretation and restrictions have to be read in the narrowest interpretation since favours are always to be extended.
At the same time, reason and common sense have to apply – and so it would be overly generous to say that one family, for example, constitutes a stable group of the faithful. There would be no other instance in which one would publicly offer Mass regularly for the benefit of one family in a parish. Another aspect is it needs be truly stable.
Most priests will have experience of people petitioning for this, that, or the other thing. It is organised with an assurance that there is a commitment to carry it forward meaningfully…and then in a matter of days, weeks, or months, it collapses. In this instance, the parish priest could halt the
vetus ordo Mass on the grounds that the group was not stable.
What practically comes into play is the subsequent phrases, frankly. By canon law, a priest may ordinarily celebrate the Eucharist once per day. In case of a
genuine need, he may binate on weekdays. On Sundays, he may trinate.
This means that, if the parish priest is alone, he should only reasonably schedule one daily Mass and use the possibility of binating to cover funeral Masses, wedding Masses, Masses at nursing homes, prisons and so forth.
As he has an obligation to harmonise this request with the other needs of the parish, he would have to assess the actual situation of this stable group and what they are actually petitioning for against other competing needs in the parish.
One Mass per month, for example, is quite different from a daily Eucharist. All else being equal, if a stable group of retirees, for example, made the request for a
vetus ordo Mass in conjunction with a monthly meeting of their group that is known to have stable attendance on a given weekday, that could be a much easier request than a request for a Mass on either Saturday or Sunday.
If the parish priest has the advantage of a parochial vicar, that gives him more flexibility in terms of responding to various pastoral requests. If he is alone, he has very little flexibility.
This is also a matter touching upon the
cura animarum. The parish priest would properly verify that this is a group composed, at least principally, of souls under his governance…especially if it limits other possibilities relative to those persons who are his proper and lawful subjects, according to his jurisdiction as parish priest.
A retired priest, for example, might offer to cover a funeral Mass or a nursing home Mass for a parish priest who is alone, but since he doesn’t have the
cura animarum for the souls of this parish, he is quite free to decline to do anything involving the
vetus ordo…or anything else he does not want to do. He is there as a volunteer. Of course it goes without saying that in danger of death, all priests come under canonical obligation to provide the last sacraments in favour of the dying…but the provision of routine pastoral care, canonically, does not carry the same weight. And that has to be taken into account. This distinction, frankly, is often lost to many laity…as I have seen on this forum.
There are any number of reasons why the parish priest may respond to a petition negatively.
That is when the
Summorum Pontificum turns to the Bishop of the diocese and states that the Bishop is
earnestly requested to make a provision. That could involve, for example, assigning a priest
ad hoc to come and provide the requested Mass.
But then the Bishop has to analyse the situation based on the resources available to him and how those resources can be effectively – and realistically – deployed. Very few bishops have priests standing about with nothing to do. He, too, can find himself unable to grant the request, for a variety of reasons. There are many more requests for pastoral care today than can actually be accommodated, above all on a stable as opposed to an
ad hoc basis.
