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

[Rykell]

Palmas, this document was probably before my time as an adult, so I don’t know the particulars. Are you saying the motu proprio issued by Paul VI opposed a prior definitive vote of the Bishops’ Council?

I just wish I could find a former precedent of this happening, and my searches of m.p.'s are coming up without any evidence that it was done in the past. Maybe if I write Zenit Fr. McNamara may be able to help.

Yes the Holy Father can overrule the Bishops and he does so at his own peril as well. They might listen and just might not. And if they don’t, what is the Holy Father going to do? Excommunicate the lot of them? I doubt it.

Then why issue a m.p. if obedience is not anticipated in its fullness? Which brings me back to why I asked about the implications of a m.p. New Advent gave little help, and it seems the lot of us are not quite able to give the full implications, either, except to say the Pope has the right to issue it.

My question was, is it to be accorded one’s filial religious assent, or might the Bishops who are in authority for their dioceses able to set it aside [due to extenuating circumstances known to them and not to the Pope.] I also asked whether it was infallible, and received a no.

I agree with you from all I have heard that there was and still is a lot of controversy over Humanae Vitae. This too, seems to be opening pandora’s box of problems.

 

[AlexV]

There doesn’t need to be a precedent … this isn’t the American legal system.

 

[Resurrexit]

My question was, is it to be accorded one’s filial religious assent, or might the Bishops who are in authority for their dioceses able to set it aside [due to extenuating circumstances known to them and not to the Pope.] I also asked whether it was infallible, and received a no.

This mp would not be infallible. But it is authoratative. You have to obey. Personally, I don’t rate the prayerfulness, sanctity and wisdom of the US Bishops, and would not look to them for advice on anything of importance. The Holy Father has the right to issue this document - any bishops who resist or disobey comit the sin of disobedience.

I agree with you from all I have heard that there was and still is a lot of controversy over Humanae Vitae. This too, seems to be opening pandora’s box of problems.

A prime example. The Pope was right, the faithful and the bishops were wrong.

 

[palmas85]

Palmas, this document was probably before my time as an adult, so I don’t know the particulars. Are you saying the motu proprio issued by Paul VI opposed a prior definitive vote of the Bishops’ Council?

I just wish I could find a former precedent of this happening, and my searches of m.p.'s are coming up without any evidence that it was done in the past. Maybe if I write Zenit Fr. McNamara may be able to help.

Then why issue a m.p. if obedience is not anticipated in its fullness? Which brings me back to why I asked about the implications of a m.p. New Advent gave little help, and it seems the lot of us are not quite able to give the full implications, either, except to say the Pope has the right to issue it.

My question was, is it to be accorded one’s filial religious assent, or might the Bishops who are in authority for their dioceses able to set it aside [due to extenuating circumstances known to them and not to the Pope.] I also asked whether it was infallible, and received a no.

I agree with you from all I have heard that there was and still is a lot of controversy over Humanae Vitae. This too, seems to be opening pandora’s box of problems.

Humanae Vitae was a the document that maintained the Churches position on birth control and contraception. The Holy Father had an advisory council, Bishops and theologians who agreed that the Church needed to modernize its view and permit contraception. Most Bishops as well as theologians agreed that the clear intent of Vatican II was to do so, otherwise they would not have defined human sexuality in the context of marriage in the way they did. It was a done deal and they were all happy. the people had spoken, freedom from Roman chains at last. . Collegiality at its best.

The Pope overruled the advisory council and went ahead with his publication maintaining the ban on contraception. . The Bishops, Clergy, religious and the laity were shocked, scandalized. mortified and just plain freaked that the Pope had exercised this power by proclaiming this doctrine without the approval of the Bishops. In fact they felt he had completely overstepped his bounds. They saw this as a clear slap in the face of the spirit of Vatican II which was to democratize the Church and do away with the centralization of power in the Vatican. Full page ads ran in major newspapers decrying this Nazi like tactic. Bishops, Priests, Nuns and lay people signed petitions protesting this insult to the Bishops and the faithful.A typical headline was A New Spanish Inquisition Emerges.

It is believed by many that the intransigence of the Bishops today in many areas is a direct result of this one document. They feared losing the autonomy they thought they had gotten from Rome after the Council.

And in the end result what does it matter? Rome isn’t going to do anything to crack down on the Bishops too hard in spite of the fact that many of them flagrantly ignore Romes directives or outright disobey them. Just look at the wide and generous application of the Indult that they gave us and tell me they really care what Rome says by and large.

 

[Brendan]

Then why issue a m.p. if obedience is not anticipated in its fullness? Which brings me back to why I asked about the implications of a m.p. New Advent gave little help, and it seems the lot of us are not quite able to give the full implications, either, except to say the Pope has the right to issue it.

An M.P. is the highest authority document for the governance of the Church.

My question was, is it to be accorded one’s filial religious assent, or might the Bishops who are in authority for their dioceses able to set it aside [due to extenuating circumstances known to them and not to the Pope.] I also asked whether it was infallible, and received a no.

Discipline is seperate from Doctrine. Only Doctrine is infallible, but all Catholics, including Bishops, must obey the Pontif on matters of Church Governance as well

Here is a relevant (an infallible) statement from Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I)

Ch 3, Canon II

. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

If the Pope issues an M.P. on a matter of Church governanc, all the bishops must comply. The only ‘wiggle room’ would be any which the Pope himself has allowed in the document.

 

[Rykell]

Palmas,
That was very enlightening. Thanks so much for your help. I can rest, for these last two posts have answered all my questions. No more pulling teeth.

Brendan,

Great, a document that spells it out!. This is what I have been hoping one of our members might be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint so I can keep it for personal reference and settle my questioning. I really don’t know why this bothered me so much. I suppose the unrest was an invitation to grow an learn.
Many thanks!

 

[johnnykins]

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.

But it already is here with the allowed rites for several orders. In any event, you cannot dispute that the Pope may come up with a different prudential judgment from yours.

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.

The Maronite Rite is not a Western Rite - it is an Eastern Rite in union with Rome. So your point is inapt.

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.

OK, but again this is a prudential judgment.

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.

Yes, but they can learn. Also, many older priests who know the TLM still exist and say Mass regularly. I’m not sure of your point. Younger priests can’t learn the new Mass? Or are you simply saying training is needed? If so, OK and so what. Train!

The pastor is obligated to celebrate the liturgy that serves the majority or the common good, not the minority.

Show me where that is required beyond your own assertion. Be sure it includes a definition of “majority” and “common good” both of which a fraught with ambiguity.

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.

Or maybe, Roman Rite churches will offer both or either.

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.

The law allowing the vigil does not restrict the ritual. Perhaps traditionalists would not want the TLM on Saturday - but maybe they would. In any event - 2 on Sunday - OK One NO and One TLM. No problem.

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.

Probably the same number who can’t stand the Life Teen Masses and Guitar Masses and pumpkin Masses etc., etc., etc…

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.

Get rid of Gather and OCP and add one TLM - also people can buy their own as was common in the 60s. No problemo here at all.

 

[johnnykins]

See below for Latin Rite liturgies:

• Roman - The overwhelming majority of Latin Catholics and of Catholics in general. Patriarch of this and the other Roman Rites is the Bishop of Rome. The current Roman Rite is that of the 1969 Missale Romanum, to be published in a third edition in 2001.

• Missal of 1962 (Tridentine Mass) - Some institutes within the Roman Rite, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, have the faculty to celebrate the sacramental rites according to the forms in use prior to the Second Vatican Council. This faculty can also be obtained by individual priests from their bishop or from the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei.
• Anglican Use - Since the 1980s the Holy See has granted some former Anglican and Episcopal clergy converting with their parishes the faculty of celebrating the sacramental rites according to Anglican forms, doctrinally corrected.
  • Mozarabic - The Rite of the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal) known from at least the 6th century, but probably with roots to the original evangelization. Beginning in the 11th century it was generally replaced by the Roman Rite, although it has remained the Rite of the Cathedral of the Archdiocese of Toledo, Spain, and six parishes which sought permission to adhere to it. Its celebration today is generally semi-private.
  • Ambrosian - The Rite of the Archdiocese of Milan, Italy, thought to be of early origin and probably consolidated, but not originated, by St. Ambrose. Pope Paul VI was from this Roman Rite. It continues to be celebrated in Milan, though not by all parishes.
  • Bragan - Rite of the Archdiocese of Braga, the Primatial See of Portugal, it derives from the 12th century or earlier. It continues to be of occasional use.
  • Dominican - Rite of the Order of Friars Preacher (OP), founded by St. Dominic in 1215.
  • Carmelite - Rite of the Order of Carmel, whose modern foundation was by St. Berthold c.1154.
  • Carthusian - Rite of the Carthusian Order founded by St. Bruno in 1084. ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

 

[30miller]

Respectfully speaking, 30miller, I’m not attempting to fall into any trap, which is the very reason I’m asking questions.
Respectfully speaking, Rykell, I know of no one who “attempts to fall into any trap”. I only know those who attempt to AVOID traps.
Hopefully, someone will take me seriously rather than offer derision.
No derision whatsoever was intended. EDIT
I’ll assume for the moment that you did not read my last post, since you were probably composing at the same time as me. You may note that I do not put laity on the same scale as a priest in any way.
“I have heard of many persons on pastoral councils deliberate in a team with the pastor on serious matters, come to consensus, and then be overruled by the pastor”. These are your words, Rykell. These are the words I was responding to. You certainly did throw this issue into the mix.
I can only know that there is no support from the faithful in my particular area to require our Bishop to grant this. That says much.
Maybe it does “say much” - but then again, you made it up yourself, so I guess you should think that.
How can you possibly know that there is “NO” support in your “particular area”? Was your diocese polled on the issue? I have followed my diocese closely and I would have no clue what support there is for the TLM.
Hopefully, some clergy who dislike the N.O. will not impose this on their parishioners without their having requested the TLM, all in the name of freedom

I see you were born in '75. Well for those of us born somewhat earlier, your statement describes EXACTLY how we got the N.O. to begin with from the “spirit of Vatican II”. It was “imposed” and I actually did not know anyone who “requested” that imposition - in the name of freedom or any other name.

I just want to let all know that Rykell sent me a “private” response to my points here. I choose not to post his “private” thoughts or respond to them specifically in public.
Having said that, there is nothing in his private post to justify his change of venue from this public forum. Other than to get away from facts. He obviously doesn’t appreciate my direct method of writing. That’s his choice. My choice is not to coddle on blogs to those I don’t know. Too many foxes in the henhouse here already just blowing smoke with the intent to mislead. All done with uber-civility.
But his method of cleverly and intricately thought out questions followed up by non-responsive and evasive answers (perhaps naive or unlearned and seeking as I think he would like us to believe, but I doubt it) - all of which give all the “benefit of the doubt” against proper authority and “question” legitimate acts of the pope, etc.
My opinion: Rykell has been given far more assistance here than he possibly needs (either if he is what he wants us to think he is or if he is the fox in the hen house that I suspect that he really is). On to other topics.

 

[fcbv]

I know, I heard about that… But I like the Standard Mass! And I don’t know Latin! It will be a big problem!

 

[E.E.N.S]

See below for Latin Rite liturgies:

• Roman - The overwhelming majority of Latin Catholics and of Catholics in general. Patriarch of this and the other Roman Rites is the Bishop of Rome. The current Roman Rite is that of the 1969 Missale Romanum, to be published in a third edition in 2001.

• Missal of 1962 (Tridentine Mass) - Some institutes within the Roman Rite, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, have the faculty to celebrate the sacramental rites according to the forms in use prior to the Second Vatican Council. This faculty can also be obtained by individual priests from their bishop or from the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei.

My “parish” is Mater Misericordiae and our priest is of the FSSP.

 

[palmas85]

I know, I heard about that… But I like the Standard Mass! And I don’t know Latin! It will be a big problem!

Then you should know that the Pauline Rite or standard Mass as you call it IS IN LATIN.

The whole thing. Start to finish. LATIN

Surprised? Many are. What you have at your Parish is a vernacular translation of the Mass. which depending on which language is used is either fairly close to the original Latin or pretty far away. In English for instance entire sections of certain prayers are removed in addition to clear mistranslations of certain words and phrases.