Ecclesia Dei Commission to meet tomorrow to discuss liberalization of the Latin Mass

[sparc]

I’m glad that there is one. Several posters on this forum have said they don’t and that Pilipinos wouldn’t go anyway, unable to learn Latin, I suppose or unwilling to make the effort. Which parish is it at please if could ask?.

Pinoy si ba?

The parish is at The Most Holy Redeemer Parish in Masambong, San Francisco Del Monte Quezon City Philippines. The Latin Mass is every Sunday at 3pm.

Yes, I am pinoy.

 

[Rykell]

Johnnykins:

I agree we do not need two churches - but I point out that having more than one liturgical form is standard in the Catholic Church. (As a monk I’m sure you heard of the other rites in the Eastern Church as well as the allowed rites within the regular communities on the West).

At first glance, this seems like good reasoning, but after thinking about it a little more, this may not be a wise solution - to splinter the Roman rite church with multiple choice liturgies.

While it is true that there are other allowed rites within the West, as you stated, I have never seen these churches offer rites in splintered form. At one time while serving in the Maronite rite church in my area, it is well-known that this rite is the only liturgy offered for the parishioners. To accommodate others who may desire the N.O., they must attend another church which celebrates this liturgy. The clergy do not bend to the wishes of the congregation to offer a separate mass for the parishioners who dislike the Maronite rite.

Even though the clergy may no longer need permission from the bishop to celebrate a TLM, I doubt that a pastor would arbitrarily impose two liturgies to please everyone in his parish, unless there was a large number of parishioners who desired the TLM mass. Our pastor was approached at one time to consider having this on occasion, but the majority of the faithful were not in accord, other than the one small handful who requested it. One must also consider the willingness and capability of the pastor to celebrate in latin, for many elderly have passed on and the newly ordained are not trained in this.

The pastor is obligated to celebrate the liturgy that serves the majority or the common good, not the minority. It may happen some day that there will be separate churches that offers the TLM exclusively, similar to the Maronite rite that uses solely its own liturgy.

Another consideration is that the vigil mass on Saturday is a real benefit for many who have working or other obligations on Sunday, so I doubt this would ever be offered at the vigil mass. For parishes with only one pastor, that leaves two masses on Sunday morning. Again, how many would be upset to be relegated to one time only for their mass due to a TLM being offered as a regular liturgy.

The consideration of adding missals for the latin rite is also another problem. I know my church has no room for another missal, for they use two worship aids already and a third would complicate things.

 

[thistle]

I figured it was either Our Lady of Fatima , Nuestra Senora de Guia or Quiapo. Quiapo is my favorite, wonderful story and a beautiful Church. They have even more Masses then does Our Lady of Fatima. If I remember right arounf 10 or so on weekdays and 14 or 15 on Sundays and Fridays. True, your Sunday Mass times don’t leave much time for anything else, but you guys still have Novenas throughout the week as well as Rosaries. And if I remember correctly they still have Baptisms and Confirmations on Sundays di ba? Or have they changed that?

I haven’t seen a baptism or confirmation on a Sunday but it is possible they might have them after the 10.30am Mass and before the 3.30pm Mass.
I do know they have baptisms on Saturday because they were taking place one Saturday I went to Confession so I sat and watched and prayed.
Yes there are Novenas and Rosaries during the week.

By the way I checked today and there are definitely 3 permanent priests but I forgot to ask how 3 of them could handle 10 Masses. I thought even priests could only receive Communion 2 times in one day. Maybe they have some dispensation. I must ask them.
Also checked on the number of parishioners. They told me its approx. 15,000.

 

[AlexV]

Oh, hear the cries of those who think liberalization of the Tridentine Missal would cause so many problems.

Oh, dumping a centuries-old form of worship practically overnight, smashing high altars, altar rails, and rearranging sanctuaries…that was all fine.

But now…to imagine churches might offer a weekly Tridentine Mass as an option for their faithful…suddenly things are so complicated, so complex, so unrealistic.

What happened in 1970 was most certainly not business as usual in Catholic liturgical history.

The Church has NEVER taught that unity means everyone has to worship the same way. Until, that is, 1970, when suddenly the mark of loyalty of Roman Catholics to the New Order was the Novus Ordo Missae. Suddenly, now, we hear so much about unity and common worship. Yet historically the Church has been quite generous in respecting diversity in liturgical practice and custom.

 

[30miller]

My priest said that he has never even seen a TLM let alone have any idea on how to be the celebrant at one. His Latin is very very basic. He is a very reverant priest who does the NO very very well. He is not anti TLM it is just very very foreign to him. He said it would be impossible for him to be forced to do such a Mass since he has never even laid eyes on such an event.

Lucky I caught this post. I was going to send your priest a 60 GB Video Ipod for a Christmas gift. But since he might never have used one before, I wouldn’t want to “force” him to use such a device. So, I’ll just return it and go see a Broadway play with the money. Thanks again.

 

[Rykell]

Mcliffor Post #31:

The bishops, therefore, will not be able to deny the ancient mass anymore, but only regulate its eventual celebration, together with the parish priests, harmonising it with the need of the community. The corrections included would have reduced from 50 to 30 the minimal number of faithful who ask for the celebration according to the old rite.

I came into the thread late, and missed this good information before I posted a few messages ago. It confirms my suspicions that unless a minimal number of thirty people in any given congregation are asking for the celebration, it is unlikely to be adopted as a regular mass by the pastor. At least not in my area. Maybe that is the bane of those who are so upset - you do not have enough supporters?

 

[mcliffor]

I came into the thread late, and missed this good information before I posted a few messages ago. It confirms my suspicions that unless a minimal number of thirty people in any given congregation are asking for the celebration, it is unlikely to be adopted as a regular mass by the pastor. At least not in my area. Maybe that is the bane of those who are so upset - you do not have enough supporters?

I don’t think that’s the case, because less than 30, the priest can say the mass for them, it just won’t involve the bishop. 30 is the number at which the bishop has the be aware of what’s going on and regulate its eventual celebration.

 

[Rykell]

Hi Mcliffor,

If I understand you, this numerical prescription was prior to the motu proprio being adopted now? Can you or anyone else help me with the understanding of motu proprio. I saw an explanation on a closed thread that briefly said it meant the pope wrote it himself and also signed it. Yet in Newadvent, it states that it is not a brief or a bull. Therefore, how do we understand its infallibility? Is it to be accorded our religious assent, or does it have leeway for the bishops in charge of their flocks and pastors.

This is hard for me to grasp in some ways, because I remembered that collectively, the bishops in session recently voted to keep “for all” instead of “pro multis” and sent their decision to the Holy See for a recognito. The pope apparently used “motu proprio” to set their decision aside, as he is now doing with the universal indult.

What troubles me is that it suggests the bishops do not have the Holy Spirit in their collective decision making on behalf of the faithful, but only the pope does. I had understood that important decisions made on behalf of the universal church are usually done in collaboration with these shepherds who act in unison and prayerfully come to a decision. Why does the pope set aside their decisions that were prayerfully made, assumably with the help of the Holy Spirit, and with majority vote?

I’m thinking of the first council in Acts where all of the apostles deliberated and gave direction regarding the gentiles’ observance of the mosaic law.

 

[AlexV]

The pope is SUPREME legislator in matters of liturgy. Majority vote of anyone else is utterly irrelevant.

He trumps episcopal conferences.

The problem since 1988 has been that too many bishops obstinately refuse to allow Tridentine Masses (i.e., the way Mass was celebrated for centuries in the Roman Rite), but often those same bishops tolerate all manner of abuse.

Infallibility has nothing to do with these issues. Papal motu proprios are not protected by infallibility.

Neither are episcopal conference statements. If all the American bishops agreed to translate PRO MULTIS as FOR ALL, their decision is not protected by any guarantee that the Holy Spirit was responsible.

 

[30miller]

Hi Mcliffor,

Therefore, how do we understand its infallibility?

Actions of the pontiff aren’t “infallible” decrees unless he declares them as such - which is very rare as our “Body of Faith” is pretty well established. Infallibility is not relevant to this topic at this time.

Is it to be accorded our religious assent, or does it have leeway for the bishops in charge of their flocks and pastors.

We are to follow all of Rome’s official directives - not just those declared to be infallible. E.g. - Cardinal Mahoney recently sent out a letter in his diocese instructing them to ignore the explicit (though not declared to be “infallible” directive) instructions from Rome that he is not to allow Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to purify the Communion vessels. Mahoney(as he often is) is wrong - he does not possess the “leeway” to disobey Rome.

This is hard for me to grasp in some ways, because I remembered that collectively, the bishops in session recently voted to keep “for all” instead of “pro multis” and sent their decision to the Holy See for a recognito. The pope apparently used “motu proprio” to set their decision aside, as he is now doing with the universal indult.
What troubles me is that it suggests the bishops do not have the Holy Spirit in their collective decision making on behalf of the faithful, but only the pope does.

That’s quite a stretch to say that. E.g. going with your “suggestion” - why wasn’t the Holy Spirit present at that “collective decission making” regarding “pro multis” for all the Bishops there - as many voted against it. Why was the Holy Spirit only present there for your majority? Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit only comes to the Bishops that you are in sympathy with? 51 to 49 decisions apply to the U S Senate - not to our Church regarding Bishops Conferences Authority versus Papal Authority issues.

I had understood that important decisions made on behalf of the universal church are usually done in collaboration with these shepherds who act in unison and prayerfully come to a decision. Why does the pope set aside their decisions that were prayerfully made, assumably with the help of the Holy Spirit, and with majority vote?

Because the Pope, “assumably with the help of the Holy Spirit” himself, is charged by the duties of HIS position to do exactly that. In the case of your example, “pro multus” translated as “for all” was ALWAYS incorrect. It never meant that. Ever. The Primacy of Peter rules. When the apsotles themselves had “different” opinions, Peter’s ruled. It is “a” (if not “the”) point on which our protestant friends departed The Church. (continuing that process, protestant bishops have recently “majority voted” to make homosexuality “OK” - and, with no pope to correct them and overrule them on this important issue, their churches are being schismed even further).

 

[Rykell]

Thanks, Alex,

… but I’m still a little unsure. When you stated that “Infallibility has nothing to do with these issues. Papal motu proprios are not protected by infallibility,” does this give some type of leverage to the bishops in spite of there being a M.P.? If it is not infallible, is it more or less “advisory?” Will it have little effect upon the bishops in this case?

The problem since 1988 has been that too many bishops obstinately refuse to allow Tridentine Masses…

Can we assume it was with good reason? Or shall we brand our bishops as obstinate [which is difficult for me to believe of the majority]. Granted that some may have denied legitimate requests of pastors who had solemn support of parishioners who asked for the mass. But I cannot believe they all just acted out of a supposed regard for wanting their own way. We would have had to sit in on all the meetings with their clergy nationwide to arrive at this conclusion. I doubt that we are able to discern their full reasonings for denial, though it might be a good idea to write to them and ask about it.

 

[AlexV]

Again, infallibility is a word that has no relevance to this thread.

If Benedict liberalizes the Tridentine Mass, the faithful will have recourse. If a bishop refuses to help them achieve their wish for a Mass, they could appeal successfully to a higher authority.

Infallibility is a mighty rare thing. And it has nothing to do with this topic.

As for episcopal “good reasons”…deciding that the mainstream Roman Rite form of Mass for centuries is suddenly prohibited and banned, in complete contravention of the liturgical history of the Church and her respect for custom, is indeed a decision we can criticize without scruple.

 

[Rykell]

That’s quite a stretch to say that. E.g. going with your “suggestion” - why wasn’t the Holy Spirit present at that “collective decision making” regarding “pro multis” for all the Bishops there - as many voted against it.

I believe the record will show “some” voted against it, but it was a very weak vote compared to the majority who were in favor of keeping it. I can give the reference, but that is not my concern specifically. I had been under the impression that when a large majority voted for an issue, it was considered valid and usually adopted. It boggles my mind to see that one person, yes the pope, can set aside the prayerful decision of a majority of the shepherds who lawfully lead the church. Does God only speak to him? And does he not regard the opinions of the bishops in making that decision? It rather shakes my faith a little, from all I have read about the authority given to bishops by the Spirit – notably in the V-II documents themselves.

Why was the Holy Spirit only present there for your majority? Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit only comes to the Bishops that you are in sympathy with?

Of course not. I am in sympathy with neither issue, for my allegiance normally lies with the Pope and what he says goes. I have no problem accepting “pro multis” and accepting the TLM m.p. But I have a little problem wondering why he discounts the bishops’ (name removed by moderator)ut??? I’m just not familiar with this, and it is the reason I’m asking.

 

[AlexV]

Because the pope is the SUPREME arbiter of the liturgy. Period.

As for majorities and minorities, since when does a majority rule in the Church? Minorities can often be right, and majorities wrong.

For all is an inaccurate translation, as any Latin I student can affirm.

Episcopal conferences have an advisory capacity. They can also legislate…but the pope can overturn their legislation because the Church is a monarchy, not a democracy or even a republic.

Taking account of the opinions of bishops and bishops’ conferences does not mean being bound to accept their conflicted (even majority) opinions.

 

[Rykell]

I agree Alex, that infallibility is not the topic, but “motu proprio” has been brought up a few times in this thread, which is the reason I asked for help in understanding its implications. I am beginning to understand a little, I think.

 

[30miller]

Because the pope is the SUPREME arbiter of the liturgy. Period.

As for majorities and minorities, since when does a majority rule in the Church? Minorities can often be right, and majorities wrong.

For all is an inaccurate translation, as any Latin I student can affirm.

Episcopal conferences have an advisory capacity. They can also legislate…but the pope can overturn their legislation because the Church is a monarchy, not a democracy or even a republic.

Taking account of the opinions of bishops and bishops’ conferences does not mean being bound to accept their conflicted (even majority) opinions.

To clarify further, Bishops’ Conferences DO have authority on a SPECIFIED list of issues - when their conference votes UNAMINOUSLY on those issues - i.e. not one dissenting vote.
I don’t know everything on that list or the level or degree of authority the Bishops’ have. For that, I just go under the assumption that the Pope DOES know where his legitimate authority is when he overrules them. As on the pro multis issue and the communion vessel purification issue. (Though I have often heard of individual bishops and groups of bishops exceed THEIR authority- e.g.see my previous Cardinal Mahoney example).
Even IF the opposition vote in the Bishops pro multis vote was “very weak” ( RYKELL’s words:he says the record “WILL” (future tense) show “some” voted against it ) - it was without question not unaminous. Some Bishops have fought to get this corrected for many years - they were, without doubt, RYKELL’s “some”.

 

[Rykell]

To clarify further, Bishops’ Conferences DO have authority on a SPECIFIED list of issues - when their conference votes UNAMINOUSLY on those issues - i.e. not one dissenting vote.

You have documentation to show this, Miller? I would really like to learn the truth before tucking away my doubts. It is not something I have seen before, because I had read that a 2/3 majority is required … and not unanimity. Since you don’t know the extent of things on the list that requires a unanimous vote, I’m supposing that in other cases the majority vote is acceptable. Otherwise, why would they have forwarded their conclusions to the Vatican for a final recognito? This had been done initially the first time they obtained permission for the change in wording, and it was okayed.

As you implied, perhaps there were a lot of letters to the Pope asking for his intervention to change it.

If I understood Alex correctly, too, if a bishop refuses to honor the pastor’s lawful right to celebrate the TLM, the pastor can now appeal to a higher authority. If that is the main purpose of a motu proprio, I believe my head is becoming clearer on this.

 

[Unfinished]

Oh, hear the cries of those who think liberalization of the Tridentine Missal would cause so many problems.

Oh, dumping a centuries-old form of worship practically overnight, smashing high altars, altar rails, and rearranging sanctuaries…that was all fine.

But now…to imagine churches might offer a weekly Tridentine Mass as an option for their faithful…suddenly things are so complicated, so complex, so unrealistic.

Very curious indeed.

The Church has NEVER taught that unity means everyone has to worship the same way. Until, that is, 1970, when suddenly the mark of loyalty of Roman Catholics to the New Order was the Novus Ordo Missae. Suddenly, now, we hear so much about unity and common worship. Yet historically the Church has been quite generous in respecting diversity in liturgical practice and custom.

Ah, but how much the people have changed in fourty years.

 

[netmilsmom]

Oh, hear the cries of those who think liberalization of the Tridentine Missal would cause so many problems.

Honestly, I still don’t get the problem with the TLM. And the unity thing doesn’t fly because from parish to parish there is no unity.

But here is a thought, maybe the reason people are afraid of the TLM is because it is a Holy Mass that may one day push out the reverent NO. Take a bunch of innovative liturgical directors and give them a TLM in the schedule. Suddenly, they scream “We don’t get our kind of liturgy.” (like we who want a Historically Catholic NO ever got it).
So the choice becomes the TLM or Happy Catholic. No reverent NO.

Is that what anyone is thinking?

 

[Resurrexit]

It boggles my mind to see that one person, yes the pope, can set aside the prayerful decision of a majority of the shepherds who lawfully lead the church.

The USCCB? Prayerful?

Does God only speak to him? And does he not regard the opinions of the bishops in making that decision? It rather shakes my faith a little, from all I have read about the authority given to bishops by the Spirit – notably in the V-II documents themselves.

Sounds a bit Protestant.

Anyone for a Barney blessing?