Clarification on Canon Law and parish shopping

[Baelor]

I could only find one thread on this through the search function, and there did not seem to be a consensus. The CCC states,

Can. 518 As a general rule, a parish is to be territorial, that is, it is to embrace all Christ’s faithful of a given territory. Where it is useful however, personal parishes are to be established, determined by reason of the rite, language or nationality of the faithful of a certain territory, or on some other basis.

There is no explicit mention of Mass attendance, but it would seem pointless to me to have territorial parish for “all Christ’s faithful” if the CCC did not intend these parishes to be used by all of the faithful in the geographical area.

To make this more concrete, I help with ministry at a Catholic chaplaincy, and several students who were very involved simply bailed with no notice and have started attending a TLM far away from where we are. It is not a personal parish and has definite geographical boundaries. I was under the impression that they should make known their concerns to the priest and then the bishop if applicable, but remain with their local parish. Liturgical abuse is not an issue, which makes this situation even more frustrating for me, especially because they did not even speak to the priest.

My impression was that parish shopping is exactly what the Catholic Church seeks to avoid, especially because it turns Catholics into consumers and undermines the integrity of the Mass as universal (by providing options that can be accepted and rejected by Catholics, e.g. a “known” liberal parish that never changes because its parishioners simply leave without trying to effect changes). As much as I love the TLM, it was never my impression that simply not liking the OF (or any particular Mass) is cause enough to abandon one’s parish.

I assume, however, that I am somehow off-base here?

 

[1ke]

Their territorial parish is still their parish as it pertains to things under the law that have to do with jurisdiction (i.e. marriage for example).

However, they are free to attend Mass anywhere they want.

 

[YoungTradCath]

People can attend Mass they want. However, the pastor of their territorial parish is who is technically responsible for them, and not the pastor of another parish should they decide to attend Mass somewhere else.

 

[Baelor]

In that case, why keep that canon at all?

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I would think TLM’s can count as a personal parish. As a student, I have two territorial parishes until I establish permanent residency in my current diocese. My quasi-territorial parish is a Korean parish with a very small English congregation I’m told. I’ve never attended it. I am registered at the parish which runs a Latin Mass community, and as far anything is concerned, it’s my parish. Even if I were to get married, it wouldn’t be at my quasi territorial parish, and I could make a good case for why it should not be held there if I needed to.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The reason the Canon is still there is for things like marriages and baptisms, in which case permission is needed from the territorial pastor even if the person(s) does/do not attend Mass at the territorial parish.

 

[1ke]

I would think TLM’s can count as a personal parish.

No. This has a very specific, technical meaning in canon law.

 

[Tigg]

It used to be, in the days of old, that one could stay within the parish boundaries and be generally satisfied that the other parish ten miles away was doing basically the same thing as yours. It was only the Protestants who shopped for their places of worship depending upon the personality of the pastor. Not so anymore…not so.

I know I will not financially support or attend Mass at any parish (no matter how close and convenient it is to my house) where there is dissention within the ranks, or where the catechetical program does not teach real Catholicism, or where the parish has programs in place that praise certain social justice groups intent on spreading the propaganda of liberation theology. Don’t get me started! I could name many other objections.

 

[YoungTradCath]

No. This has a very specific, technical meaning in canon law.

I think Deo Gratias is referring to TLM-only parishes. I’ve never heard of a TLM-only parish that wasn’t a personal parish.

 

[Baelor]

The reason the Canon is still there is for things like marriages and baptisms, in which case permission is needed from the territorial pastor even if the person(s) does/do not attend Mass at the territorial parish.

Got it – makes perfect sense in this context.

I know I will not financially support or attend Mass at any parish (no matter how close and convenient it is to my house) where there is dissention within the ranks, or where the catechetical program does not teach real Catholicism, or where the parish has programs in place that praise certain social justice groups intent on spreading the propaganda of liberation theology. Don’t get me started! I could name many other objections.

I would imagine that if Catholics did not have the option of switching parishes and instead had to make do (and improve) what they had at their home parishes, this would be less of an issue because most parishes would fall in line. In other words, I wonder if we have to worry about this now because we have a less localized parish structure.

 

[superamazingman]

I could only find one thread on this through the search function, and there did not seem to be a consensus. The CCC states,

There is no explicit mention of Mass attendance, but it would seem pointless to me to have territorial parish for “all Christ’s faithful” if the CCC did not intend these parishes to be used by all of the faithful in the geographical area.

To make this more concrete, I help with ministry at a Catholic chaplaincy, and several students who were very involved simply bailed with no notice and have started attending a TLM far away from where we are. It is not a personal parish and has definite geographical boundaries. I was under the impression that they should make known their concerns to the priest and then the bishop if applicable, but remain with their local parish. Liturgical abuse is not an issue, which makes this situation even more frustrating for me, especially because they did not even speak to the priest.

My impression was that parish shopping is exactly what the Catholic Church seeks to avoid, especially because it turns Catholics into consumers and undermines the integrity of the Mass as universal (by providing options that can be accepted and rejected by Catholics, e.g. a “known” liberal parish that never changes because its parishioners simply leave without trying to effect changes). As much as I love the TLM, it was never my impression that simply not liking the OF (or any particular Mass) is cause enough to abandon one’s parish.

I assume, however, that I am somehow off-base here?

Do you offer the EF at your parish? They have a right to the EF, and if you aren’t supplying it at the parish where you want them, they are free to go elsewhere.

Here’s a few other things to consider as to why they might have left:

Is the music solid?

One surefire way to drive me away to a parish is to use a piano. Or Gather comprehensive. Or a gituar. It’s clear that the church wants so much more for our liturgical music, and if you’re playing haugen or praise and worship, you will drive them away.

Have you considered the OF itself?
I know this isn’t a popular topic around here, but the OF does have dubious beginnings. The first draft was so far removed from the essence of the Mass that it was utterly rejected by the holy father. Then when it was approved, the holy father later wept at some of the things that he unknowingly approved. There’s no question about it: VII was awesome, but the people that created the OF were not. I sound like a schmasic, but it’s true, the OF does have questionable beginnings. Sorry if that upsets you, but it’s true. Again, consider offering the EF, and maybe you’ll have them back. But as it is, the more you look into the hidden history, the less attractive the OF becomes.

 

[superamazingman]

I could only find one thread on this through the search function, and there did not seem to be a consensus. The CCC states,

There is no explicit mention of Mass attendance, but it would seem pointless to me to have territorial parish for “all Christ’s faithful” if the CCC did not intend these parishes to be used by all of the faithful in the geographical area.

To make this more concrete, I help with ministry at a Catholic chaplaincy, and several students who were very involved simply bailed with no notice and have started attending a TLM far away from where we are. It is not a personal parish and has definite geographical boundaries. I was under the impression that they should make known their concerns to the priest and then the bishop if applicable, but remain with their local parish. Liturgical abuse is not an issue, which makes this situation even more frustrating for me, especially because they did not even speak to the priest.

My impression was that parish shopping is exactly what the Catholic Church seeks to avoid, especially because it turns Catholics into consumers and undermines the integrity of the Mass as universal (by providing options that can be accepted and rejected by Catholics, e.g. a “known” liberal parish that never changes because its parishioners simply leave without trying to effect changes). As much as I love the TLM, it was never my impression that simply not liking the OF (or any particular Mass) is cause enough to abandon one’s parish.

I assume, however, that I am somehow off-base here?

Do you offer the EF at your parish? They have a right to the EF, and if you aren’t supplying it at the parish where you want them, they are free to go elsewhere.

Here’s a few other things to consider as to why they might have left:

Is the music solid?

One surefire way to drive me away to a parish is to use a piano. Or Gather comprehensive. Or a gituar. It’s clear that the church wants so much more for our liturgical music, and if you’re playing haugen or praise and worship, you will drive them away.

Have you considered the OF itself?
I know this isn’t a popular topic around here, but the OF does have dubious beginnings. The first draft was so far removed from the essence of the Mass that it was utterly rejected by the holy father. Then when it was approved, the holy father later wept at some of the things that he unknowingly approved. There’s no question about it: VII was awesome, but the people that created the OF were not. I sound like a schmasic, but it’s true, the OF does have questionable beginnings. Sorry if that upsets you, but it’s true. Again, consider offering the EF, and maybe you’ll have them back. But as it is, the more you look into the hidden history, the less attractive the OF becomes.

For example, look in sacrosanctum concilium. It clearly states: “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” How can you reconcile this with our current missal, which only contains about 2 paragraphs of latin? How can the usage of latin be widespread and universal if our missal DOESN’T HAVE ANY!?!? This is just one small example of the OF’s questionable origins and current implementation.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I didn’t even know Latin was our official language. I was confused for the longest time why we called ourselves Latin rite Catholics.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

I could only find one thread on this through the search function, and there did not seem to be a consensus. The CCC states,

There is no explicit mention of Mass attendance, but it would seem pointless to me to have territorial parish for “all Christ’s faithful” if the CCC did not intend these parishes to be used by all of the faithful in the geographical area.

To make this more concrete, I help with ministry at a Catholic chaplaincy, and several students who were very involved simply bailed with no notice and have started attending a TLM far away from where we are. It is not a personal parish and has definite geographical boundaries. I was under the impression that they should make known their concerns to the priest and then the bishop if applicable, but remain with their local parish. Liturgical abuse is not an issue, which makes this situation even more frustrating for me, especially because they did not even speak to the priest.

My impression was that parish shopping is exactly what the Catholic Church seeks to avoid, especially because it turns Catholics into consumers and undermines the integrity of the Mass as universal (by providing options that can be accepted and rejected by Catholics, e.g. a “known” liberal parish that never changes because its parishioners simply leave without trying to effect changes). As much as I love the TLM, it was never my impression that simply not liking the OF (or any particular Mass) is cause enough to abandon one’s parish.

I assume, however, that I am somehow off-base here?

A TLM parish is a personal parish by definition; a personal parish is not restricted to geographical boundaries, anyone from any part of the diocese may choose such a parish as their preference. In addition, it is up to the pastor of the chosen parish to decide to accept registered parishioners from outside the geographical boundaries, most do so willingly.

 

[Baelor]

Do you offer the EF at your parish? They have a right to the EF, and if you aren’t supplying it at the parish where you want them, they are free to go elsewhere.

It was simply an illustrative example. I am not interested in discussing the particulars of the case.

Thank you for your reply, but that is not the purpose of this thread and I will not respond to anything but the factual aspects of your post.

the OF does have questionable beginnings.

The OF is totally valid and until the Vatican claims that it is theologically or spiritually inferior to the EF, etc.

How can you reconcile this with our current missal, which only contains about 2 paragraphs of latin? How can the usage of latin be widespread and universal if our missal DOESN’T HAVE ANY!?!? This is just one small example of the OF’s questionable origins and current implementation.

The OF Missal is in Latin. It is then translated into English. Have you attended an OF Mass in Latin? I highly recommend it. I would suggest learning more about the OF before criticizing it.

A TLM parish is a personal parish by definition

I said they attended a TLM, not a TLM parish. Please do not make this thread into something it was not.

As far as I am concerned, my questions has been answered completely and satisfactorily; mods are free to close thread.

 

[Phemie]

The reason the Canon is still there is for things like marriages and baptisms, in which case permission is needed from the territorial pastor even if the person(s) does/do not attend Mass at the territorial parish.

Not if they attend a personal parish, which could encompass members of an ethnic group from many geographical parishes.

 

[1ke]

I think Deo Gratias is referring to TLM-only parishes. I’ve never heard of a TLM-only parish that wasn’t a personal parish.

The OP did not state it was a TLM-only parish. The OP did specifically state it was NOT a personal parish.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

The OP did not state it was a TLM-only parish. The OP did specifically state it was NOT a personal parish.

Either way, they ditched and went to a TLM. As Catholics we have the right to the EF Mass, as Summorum Pontificum points out. If their territorial parish wasn’t providIng it, they found one somewhere else. Heck, I used to drive two hours one way to attend the EF Mass.

 

[superamazingman]

It was simply an illustrative example. I am not interested in discussing the particulars of the case.

Thank you for your reply, but that is not the purpose of this thread and I will not respond to anything but the factual aspects of your post.

The OF is totally valid and until the Vatican claims that it is theologically or spiritually inferior to the EF, etc.

Not saying it’s invalid, but it is true that it has dubious beginnings.

The OF Missal is in Latin. It is then translated into English. Have you attended an OF Mass in Latin? I highly recommend it. I would suggest learning more about the OF before criticizing it.

I know pleanty about the OF. It’s the form I mostly attend. It can be done well, I know that first hand. I frequently attend it in latin. But the point still stands.

I said they attended a TLM, not a TLM parish. Please do not make this thread into something it was not.

As far as I am concerned, my questions has been answered completely and satisfactorily; mods are free to close thread.

 

[1ke]

Either way, they ditched and went to a TLM. As Catholics we have the right to the EF Mass, as Summorum Pontificum points out. If their territorial parish wasn’t providIng it, they found one somewhere else. Heck, I used to drive two hours one way to attend the EF Mass.

I don’t believe anyone has argued that there is a problem with attending a Mass that is not in your territorial parish.

My comment was only related to the inaccuracy of your asssertion that the parish in question was a “personal parish”. It is not.