Father McLucas Quits as Latin Mass Magazine Editor

[BobP123]

I just received my copy of Latin Mass, Spring 2007 edition. Fr. James McLucas (who has made appearances on EWTN, in Rockford seminars, and is well-known in the LM community) writes:

Dearest Friends, Last year when I addressed *The Latin Mass * conference in Monterey, near the end of my talk I spoke these words: “The situation [for Catholics of tradition] is grim: our only answer is the creation of a canonical structure by the Holy See which will deliver us from those who hate us in our own Church – but who exercise authority over us. I am hopeful, but far from confident, that we will receive relief from the present Holy Father. If we do not, many priests and laity will be forced to make decisions which will be painful. I can only guarantee that, like all major catastrophes in the history of the Church, the solution will be very messy, and far from neat.”

As of February 11 of this year, I entered into my fifth year of the battle to restore my canonical faculties. During this time I have been unable to exercise publicly the functions of an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church. The final disposition of this situation remains unresolved. Ultimately, this condition, more than any other, has led me to the reluctant decision to resign as editor-in-chief of the Latin Mass. My present and continuing ecclesial circumstance is incompatible with holding the sensitive position of editor-in-chief of a serious Catholic international journal.

There is more but I think we all see his point. I’m sure the “other” side will be as unforgiving as they are with the SSPX priests but let’s pray for him and for ourselves that we get something from the Vatican soon. Apostolic Administration perhaps? Otherwise, the situation may be graver than we suspect. I have a feeling this priest is right. Either way, I will miss his column.

 

[TNT]

RE:

I entered into my fifth year of the battle to restore my canonical faculties. During this time I have been unable to exercise publicly the functions of an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church.

I had NO idea of his condition. What prompted it, and who removed them???

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I think Fr. McLucas’ irregular canonical situation is quite unfortunate - I don’t know anything about the man and don’t typically read the magazine, but any time a priest is suspended there is either sin or misunderstanding, both of which are unfotrunate. I think this priest exhibits far more honesty and integrity than many with canonical difficulties because of the last quoted sentence:

My present and continuing ecclesial circumstance is incompatible with holding the sensitive position of editor-in-chief of a serious Catholic international journal.

He wants the journal to be seriously Catholic, and knows that being run by a suspended priest is a serious blow to legitimacy. He made the hard but wise and gracious choice to put the good of the apostolate before himself.

 

[BobP123]

I think Fr. McLucas’ irregular canonical situation is quite unfortunate - I don’t know anything about the man and don’t typically read the magazine, but any time a priest is suspended there is either sin or misunderstanding, both of which are unfotrunate. I think this priest exhibits far more honesty and integrity than many with canonical difficulties because of the last quoted sentence:

My present and continuing ecclesial circumstance is incompatible with holding the sensitive position of editor-in-chief of a serious Catholic international journal.

He wants the journal to be seriously Catholic, and knows that being run by a suspended priest is a serious blow to legitimacy. He made the hard but wise and gracious choice to put the good of the apostolate before himself.

I think this also shows that the real burden of the full restoration of the TLM is upon the laity who are basically free to form communion with ANYONE who is in full communion with the Holy See. Don’t laugh but we laypeople are free to “fire” our own bishops and write to the Holy Father directly. We are free to form our own communities and express our concerns to those bishops whom we feel we can approach in order to set the rules straight, so to speak. We are also free to contribute to those causes which we see as fruitful and withhold money from those whom we perceive to be threats to our faith.

On the other hand, priests, even those belonging to FSSP and ICR, are in a tough position. They report to their bishops directly or indirectly and abide by his decisions, whom we trust are to the well-being of his diocese. Priests cannot question, they cannot state their own opinions, and they cannot join forces without risk to their canonical status. Walking on eggs without breaking them would be easier for many of them.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

On the other hand, priests, even those belonging to FSSP and ICR, are in a tough position. They report to their bishops directly or indirectly and abide by his decisions, whom we trust are to the well-being of his diocese. Priests cannot question, they cannot state their own opinions, and they cannot join forces without risk to their canonical status. Walking on eggs without breaking them would be easier for many of them.

I think canonical censure for a disagreement properly expressed would be unjust, but you are right that the greater risk of censure and closer bond of obedience leave priests of objectively good intent with less room for action than laymen.

 

[rien]

I think this is a defacto admission that whatever, if anything, comes from Benedict on the TLM will far short of what traditionalists were hoping and lead to a final realization among some traditionalists that there is no hope for reconcilitaion with the institutional church.

The high hopes of traditionalists seem to be dimming. The newspaper of the San Francisoc diocese this week said traditionalists will not get the victory they were hoping for with the promulgation expected from the Pope on this.

Where do traditioanlists go now if this is the case? Splinter further?

Is there hope for a “Catholic Use” in the Orthodox church? Frankly the Orthodox seem to be the only ones holding to the their historic liturgy handed down over centuries.

To quote from the the 04/20/07 edition of Catholic San Francisco:

"as Cardinal Ratzinger, he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.

In one revealing speech to Catholi traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly the old “low Mass” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation was not what liturgy should be “which is why it was not paionful for many people” when it disappeared."

The article says also that Benedict plans to “lessen tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass rather than hand aout a victory to traditonalists”.

Basically I think this is on point and that the promulgation will be far more limited that some traditionalists hope. The article points out that Latin Mass opportunitis are very limited in the Bay Area - that is likely not to change.

 

[BobP123]

Is there hope for a “Catholic Use” in the Orthodox church? Frankly the Orthodox seem to be the only ones holding to the their historic liturgy handed down over centuries.

Yes. Though the numbers of Catholics requesting the TLM is relatively small, two things may be of high importance in issuing the liberalization of the TLM: (1) extreme interest by the Orthodox Church in seeing how the Catholic Church deals with its own traditionalists before they hold any kind of serious talks in reconciliation with the Holy See and (2) the Holy Father’s own love of the old liturgy.

As you say, in the short run there may not be any great victory for the traditionalists but let’s hope in the long run it will be for the greater good of the Church and greater glory of God.

 

[rien]

Yes. Though the numbers of Catholics requesting the TLM is relatively small, two things may be of high importance in issuing the liberalization of the TLM: (1) extreme interest by the Orthodox Church in seeing how the Catholic Church deals with its own traditionalists before they hold any kind of serious talks in reconciliation with the Holy See and (2) the Holy Father’s own love of the old liturgy.

As you say, in the short run there may not be any great victory for the traditionalists but let’s hope in the long run it will be for the greater good of the Church and greater glory of God.

Actually, I was referring to comments I’ve heard from some traditionalists in independent groups concerned over the splintering that occurs iamong indepeendent traditonalists/chapelks and wanting a “home” church and postualting a union somehow with the Eastern orthodox - along the lines of the Anglican Use in the catholic church. Thus independent traditionalist could conver to Orthodoxy but retain their liturgy as the 6 or 7 Episcopal parishes who have converted to Catholicm in the US have been allowed to keep their liturgy.

If indeed Benedict’s offer falls short as looks more and more to be the case, my opinion is that dis-affected traditionalists should go this route rather than continue as independent semi-associated groups. That is a path that guarantees further splintering among traditionalists IMO.

 

[BobP123]

Actually, I was referring to comments I’ve heard from some traditionalists in independent groups concerned over the splintering that occurs iamong indepeendent traditonalists/chapelks and wanting a “home” church and postualting a union somehow with the Eastern orthodox - along the lines of the Anglican Use in the catholic church. Thus independent traditionalist could conver to Orthodoxy but retain their liturgy as the 6 or 7 Episcopal parishes who have converted to Catholicm in the US have been allowed to keep their liturgy.

If indeed Benedict’s offer falls short as looks more and more to be the case, my opinion is that dis-affected traditionalists should go this route rather than continue as independent semi-associated groups. That is a path that guarantees further splintering among traditionalists IMO.

From looking at the Anglican Use Mass, I’m not sure there wouldn’t be some “minor” adjustments in “keeping” one’s own liturgy. (It appears the words “for you and for all” have been inserted into the consecration, for example.) However, I haven’t seen any proposed liturgical texts of Orthodox liturgies that would be allowed into the Catholic stream, though I’m sure they would lead into massive amounts of controversy, suspicion, and more conspiracy theories.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I think canonical censure for a disagreement properly expressed would be unjust, but you are right that the greater risk of censure and closer bond of obedience leave priests of objectively good intent with less room for action than laymen.

A layman just has to avoid heresy to escape censure. A priest has to avoid saying things which might be interpreted as the official position of the Church.

 

[rien]

From looking at the Anglican Use Mass, I’m not sure there wouldn’t be some “minor” adjustments in “keeping” one’s own liturgy. (It appears the words “for you and for all” have been inserted into the consecration, for example.) However, I haven’t seen any proposed liturgical texts of Orthodox liturgies that would be allowed into the Catholic stream, though I’m sure they would lead into massive amounts of controversy, suspicion, and more conspiracy theories.

The big problem would be the Filoque if some traditionalists were to seek union with the Orthodox church. I actually think the liturgy could probably be pretty much kept in tact.

This would be a huge help for the Orthodox in the West if they had significant numbers of traditionalist groups converting and bringing in chapels and schools. It would fit with the Orthodox model where there are national churches and the liturgies differ somewhat between the various churches.

It would fit too with some evangelical congregations which have converted to Orthodoxy. There is a large Antiochean Orthodox church in San Jose or that area whose priests and most members are converts from an evangelical congregation.

It all depends on what the Pope offers but I suspect it will fall short and many traditionalists will walk away. The big mistake in that is that it will lead to further breakups unless they are able to join the other historical church - the Orthodox.

As it is there are a fair number of non-traditionalist Catholics converting to Orthodoxy over issues of the watering down of the historic faith in the US anyway.

 

[Genesis315]

Traditionalist leadership can’t admit they are wrong on anything. If you think they are going to abandon all their ecclesiological beliefs (not to mention other doctrines) and join the Orthodox, I think you might be disappointed. Likewise, followers of traditionalist leadership have no loyalty to anyone. If their leader goes Orthdox, he would simply become to them a schismatic heretic.

 

[rien]

Traditionalist leadership can’t admit they are wrong on anything. If you think they are going to abandon all their ecclesiological beliefs (not to mention other doctrines) and join the Orthodox, I think you might be disappointed. Likewise, followers of traditionalist leadership have no loyalty to anyone. If their leader goes Orthdox, he would simply become to them a schismatic heretic.

That is I hope a generalization. I have heard some independent traditionalists express concern over a splintering and some bring up the “Orthodox option”. They realize it would keep them in union with the historical church and they recognize the much greater respect the Orthodox have for time-honored Liturgy.

 

[BobP123]

Traditionalist leadership can’t admit they are wrong on anything.

What leadership exactly are you talking about here? Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the Pope is still the leader of both traditional and non-traditional Catholics.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

That is I hope a generalization. I have heard some independent traditionalists express concern over a splintering and some bring up the “Orthodox option”. They realize it would keep them in union with the historical church and they recognize the much greater respect the Orthodox have for time-honored Liturgy.

It makes no sense for a Catholic traditionalist to consider schism in order to keep in union with the historical church - whatever a traditionalist’s “irregular” status, he is at least sure that the Orthodox are in schism.

 

[rwoehmke]

I am bothered by what I perceive as a forcast of a split with “Traditional” Catholics defying their Bishop and perhaps even joining a schismatic church to fulfill their desire for the TLM. I seem to recall some talk in the distant past, after Vatican II, that allowing the free use of the TLM would lead to a division in our Church. I guess it is human to want to have one’s own way no matter what.

 

[chevalier]

Joining with the Orthodox for the sake of the Tridentine mass would be like going Orthodox in order to be more Catholic.

 

[rien]

Joining with the Orthodox for the sake of the Tridentine mass would be like going Orthodox in order to be more Catholic.

Ironically there are non-traditional Catholics converting to Orthodoxy to be more in line with historic Christianity as they see it. In the diocese I live in which has been very liberal and non-orthodox for years, there is a steady stream of converts to Orthodoxy because they feel they are being fed or will be fed the true histopric faith in a way that just does not happen in this diocese. The new bishop is even more heterodox in some way than the previous one so things don’t get beeter and it comes a time for some it seems.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has veered off topic. Please start a new thread to discuss any side issues. Thank you.

 

[BobP123]

I am bothered by what I perceive as a forcast of a split with “Traditional” Catholics defying their Bishop and perhaps even joining a schismatic church to fulfill their desire for the TLM. I seem to recall some talk in the distant past, after Vatican II, that allowing the free use of the TLM would lead to a division in our Church. I guess it is human to want to have one’s own way no matter what.

You don’t become schismatic by defying your bishop. If he tries anything, you can always move to another diocese and get reinstated or write Rome directly. The only thing that matters TO A LAYPERSON is that he is in communion with the Pope.

In fact, maybe more of the laity should communicate with the Pope. I had an email address of JPII, need to find one for BXVI.