F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Yes, it is allowed.
I take exception to the “The Mass of All Ages” in reference to the EF as it is not such a thing. I believe “The Mass of All Ages” is the Mass in any and every rite.
- Status
I take exception to the “The Mass of All Ages” in reference to the EF as it is not such a thing. I believe “The Mass of All Ages” is the Mass in any and every rite.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Wasn’t Rome going to clarify what is mean by a stable group?
N
NeelyAnn
Guest
Certainly there are a shortage of priests today and that can cause a problem. But, although a priest is supposed to grant the EF when requested does not mean he himself has to say it. If his schedule does not permit, he can get another priest to say it. In my diocese, we have a retired priest that says the EF at one of the diocesan locations where the EF is offered. The priest can also enlist the help of the FSSP, or other order priest who can say the Mass. Some typically OF order priest have been learning to say the EF Mass. If the priest is not sure how to work it out, he can go to his bishop and the bishop can go to Rome if need be.
I don’t think this is a question about dropping the OF for an EF. I don’t think anyone is saying that should happen. Although, I am sure there are some who think it should happen. This should also not be about not providing the EF due to the OF.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
:yup:
R
reggieM
Guest
In practical terms, it’s a question of proportion of the congregation, number of clergy and desire/committment from the clergy/diocese.
It’s difficult to put a fixed number on it. If the pastor thinks that the TLM could be a benefit for the existing group, then the size of that group will be important. If they think that EF-goers will increase over time, they will be more patient and do some “marketing” – in other words, they already have a committment to the EF and want it to be successful.
In your parish, your priest would have to either take on a fourth Mass, to preserve the EF, or eliminate the EF in favor of the OF – or, direct the overflow to the under-attended OF Mass.
An 11 a.m. EF Mass is pretty ideal. It would be difficult to say that it only gets 50 because it’s at a bad time in a bad location, etc. It’s in a prime-time slot. So, the problem is why it is under-attended. Probably the belief was that it would be relatively full, maybe more than the OF Masses. That didn’t work for whatever reason. It may be that there is another EF Mass nearby and no need for two in neighboring parishes.
In the end, no law is going to force a single priest to preserve an EF Mass if he has no backup-support and it is perceived as under-attended in proportion to the OF population (and if he’s not personally committed to making it grow). If he could get an assistant, then there would be less of an issue.
But the numbers are a major problem nonetheless. 3 Masses, “nearly full” with 300 each – so 900 attending the OF with the need/desire for another one (another 300?) – that’s over 1,000 attending the OF. Then, a prime-time EF Mass draws 50.
The 50 who are emotional or not about this issue, need to go out and start canvassing the neighborhood to draw in any and everybody they can to build up attendance.
There doesn’t seem to be any other way around it because to a neutral observer (as many priests are – fair, but neutral on the question of the EF) – the numbers don’t justify it.
It’s the rare few who recognize that the EF has high value for the future, even if present numbers don’t seem to be adequate to support it.
N
NeelyAnn
Guest
Reggie,
That seems contrary to what Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has said:
catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000281.shtml
ccjr.us/dialogika-resourc…ciandaro08may8
catholicnews.com/data/sto…ns/0803186.htm
M
Malkin71
Guest
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Actually in a case where a parish has three OF Masses and one EF Mass if they were to add another OF Mass then the issue would be if they should drop the under attended (by this I mean less of an attendance than the other Masses) EF Mass. That is if one priest is celebrating all of these Masses as Canonically a priest should not celebrate more three Masses a day in dire need.
Here is the Canon.
Can. 905 §1 Apart from those cases in which the law allows him to celebrate or concelebrate the Eucharist a number of times on the same day, a priest may not celebrate more than once a day.
§2 If there is a scarcity of priests, the local Ordinary may for a good reason allow priests to celebrate twice in one day or even, if pastoral need requires it, three times on Sundays or holydays of obligation.
Ideally they should get help for this poor priest.
Sometimes it appears that priests are becoming nothing more than sacrament machines.
M
Malkin71
Guest
I was not being smart when I refered to the EF as “The Mass of All Ages”. I apologized if it did. The EF has been called “The Mass of All Ages”. I have a video from Eclesia Dei about it. Also I was Baptised Eastern Rite. I was Baptised and Confirmed at the same time. The Eastern Rite is in my roots. I have Icons with Icon Scarfs in my house. I have done eggs. A friend of the family who is a Priest is Bi-Ritual. He can say the OF and the Devine Liturgy. He has helped out at different Bzyantine Churches.
I have the great and outmost respect for the Eastern Rite and the Eastern Orothodox! Their history and the contrabutions that they have are a MAJOR part of the Church.
R
reggieM
Guest
Ok, thanks. Two of the links don’t work but from the first one:
He also confirmed that he foresees at least one Sunday Mass in the Extraordinary Form per parish in the future even if there isn’t the “consistent and stable group” described in article five of the Motu Proprio, demanding the traditional Latin Mass.
The Cardinal “forsees” that there would be the requirement (?) for at least one EF Mass in every parish. This is something he predicts “in the future”. He thus predicts the elimination of the clause “consistent and stable group”.
But he says that because at present, there is no requirement and the document states that there must be a consistent and stable group. That phrase might or might not have any specific meaning.
He then acknowledges that the phrase has some kind of meaning.
In the Jesus magazine interview the cardinal also clarified what was meant by a “stable group”, the definition of which has been a sticking point for bishops, who have said that demand is too low for there to be a provision for the older form of the Mass.
He said: “This is a matter of common sense: why create problems if the people who ask for the rite come from different parishes? If they get together and request a Mass, they become a stable group even if they did not know each other before. Also the number [of the group] is a question of goodwill. In some parishes, especially in the countryside, on weekdays the people who come to the ordinary Mass are three or four, and the same occurs in not a few religious houses. Why, if those same three people request the old Mass, would it be pastorally necessary to refuse it?”
In this reply he says that “common sense” must be used. Then he gives an example of a “weekday” (not Sunday) Mass attended by three or four.
That merely confirms what I said, in my opinion.
Who is going to say that it is “common sense” to support a Sunday EF Mass that has an attendance of “three or four” in a parish where the OF gets 1,000 and is understaffed?
If we were in that “future state” where an EF was “required by law” in every parish – then there’d be no requirement for a “consistent and stable group” and the Mass would have to be offered even if there was only one person attending. This would eliminate the need for common sense also.
To the Cardinal’s credit, he is trying to give every possible advantage to the support of the EF in parishes under the current norms, and even proposing stronger norms for the future to allow it to be present in every parish. In my opinion, that is great. I think those norms should come with more catechetics and promotion from the Holy See, requiring pastors to not only offer the EF, but to promote it and explain it and try to get more people to appreciate it.
Failing that, under the current norms, the good Cardinal’s opinions are not going to hold up in a Canonical process, unfortunately.
N
NeelyAnn
Guest
Reggie, there are other articles, too.
Vatican clamps down on Killala Latin Mass move
The Bishop in the above article tried not to provide the Latin Mass, but he was told he could not do that.
Also here:
Resistance to Latin Mass liberalization is disobedient and proud, says bishop
And here:
Archbishop denies restricting traditional Latin Mass
In this last article, the archbishop says the following: “If people ask me for that, it is my obligation as a bishop to provide them a priest.”
If people ask for the Traditional Latin Mass, the priest is supposed to do his best to make it available. If he is not able, the bishop is supposed to assist in making it happen. If he cannot, Ecclesia Dei will. That is pretty much the protocol that has been communicated by Ecclesia Dei. I have heard other stories where people had eventually appealed to Ecclesia Dei, and Ecclesia Dei did tell the bishop to make the Mass available. I believe that Milan was one of those dioceses.
Vatican clamps down on Killala Latin Mass move
The Bishop in the above article tried not to provide the Latin Mass, but he was told he could not do that.
Also here:
Resistance to Latin Mass liberalization is disobedient and proud, says bishop
And here:
Archbishop denies restricting traditional Latin Mass
In this last article, the archbishop says the following: “If people ask me for that, it is my obligation as a bishop to provide them a priest.”
If people ask for the Traditional Latin Mass, the priest is supposed to do his best to make it available. If he is not able, the bishop is supposed to assist in making it happen. If he cannot, Ecclesia Dei will. That is pretty much the protocol that has been communicated by Ecclesia Dei. I have heard other stories where people had eventually appealed to Ecclesia Dei, and Ecclesia Dei did tell the bishop to make the Mass available. I believe that Milan was one of those dioceses.
N
NeelyAnn
Guest
R
reggieM
Guest
Ok, that is helpful. I think it’s clear that the faithful have a solid opportunity to appeal decisions by the bishop and the Holy See will support those who desire to attend the EF Mass. That is great. But there are still the common-sense problems, as in the case where a Mass is under-attended and there are no priests.
Vatican clamps down on Killala Latin Mass move
The Bishop in the above article tried not to provide the Latin Mass, but he was told he could not do that.
That’s right - and good to see this change. But the difference here is:
A high-profile Vatican office has ordered Bishop John Fleming to make provision for the traditional Latin Mass in his Killala diocese.
It looks like this is one TLM for the diocese. This doesn’t talk about a lack of attendance.
Bishop Fleming has now designated the Church of the Assumption, Ardagh, Crossmolina, Co Mayo as the centre for the traditional Mass in the Killala diocese and the celebrant will be Fr John Loftus, a priest of the diocese.
Notice how the bishop created a “centre” for the TLM in the diocese. That is the old “indult model” - not the SP model where parishoners request it in their parish. Now the bishop has fulfilled the requirement – he permits one Mass in the diocese. He also assigned a priest for it.
Again, common sense tells us that this simply is not going to happen in every parish in the diocese where 2 or 3 people want the EF. The Holy See is not going to assign a 100 (non existent) priests to offer Masses just because a few people in each parish wanted them. Instead, they will point to “the TLM centre” – and people will have to travel there.
This doesn’t address the question. In the case proposed in this thread, there’s no hostility or disobedience shown against the TLM. It’s a sheer question of numbers - not enough support.
Again, not relevant. This is regarding a “one Mass in the diocese” policy.
Sure – “a priest”. That’s one priest in the archdiocese. Rome is going to make sure there is “one Mass” – but that’s it. There won’t be a guarantee for 20 Masses, for example.
That’s right - as above. If the Mass that we’re talking about with 50 attendees is the only TLM in the entire diocese (and that’s the only priest offering it) - then it shouldn’t be replaced with an OF Mass, but rather, moved to another parish.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I can agree with this but then there are the logistical issues.
Who pays for the priest who celebrates the Mass? Who pays for the services (heating/cooling, electricity, etc.) of the parish where it is celebrated?
Is it to be that that well attended Ordinary Form Masses must subsidize the Extraordinary Form of the Mass? or must the Extraordinary Form of the Mass have a large enough collection to cover these costs?
I think this is something that people forget about.
I also see that someone has said “If people ask for the Traditional Latin Mass, the priest is supposed to do his best to make it available.”
Could someone provide a reference to this? No document says that a priest must celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. We do have a document that says a bishop must provide for it but if no priest is willing and there are issues with affording an outside priest then what? I also do not see where Rome has granted a right to the laity for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, only a right to the priest to celebrate it if he wishes to and I would assume that it does not interfere with his other responsibilities as assigned by his bishop.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, that’s so, but Milan is a very special case because it was not the Roman Rite EF that was at issue but rather the ancient and venerable Ambrosian Rite. The problem was that the present (and soon to retire) Archbishop of Milan has impeded the celebration of the traditional Ambrosian Rite, and continues to do so despite Ecclesia Dei’s ruling. The strange (and very sad) thing is that there are (and were – Ecclesia Dei had nothing to do with it) numerous places in the Archdiocese of Milan that offer the Roman Rite EF, but only 2 that are allowed to publicly offer the traditional Ambrosian equivalent. Apparently, the Archbishop, in his capacity as Capo Rito, unilaterally decided that the traditional Ambrosian Rite would continue to be subject to “indult” and has not as yet (at least to my knowledge) taken steps to implement Ecclesia Dei’s ruling beyond adding 1 location (to make the total of 2). I’m told that he will not even consider allowing it in the Duomo, and I believe there have been arguments with him about offering it in the Basilica di Sant’ Ambrogio. Perhaps the next Archbishop and Capo Rito will be of a more reasonable nature.
M
malphono
Guest
The so-called “logistical issues” notwithstanding, I find it troubling (to say the very least) to reduce the celebration of Holy Mass in the EF to a matter of the size of the collection or anything else related to the almighty dollar.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
True, but we must be realistic.
If a parish can not support its debt requirements it will be closed down, that is a fact of the world we live in.
It would be nice if we did not have these issues but to ignore them or to try and belittle those of us who bring them up is unrealistic and naive.
M
malphono
Guest
I won’t even grace that barb with a retort. It’s not worth my while.
R
reggieM
Guest
Costs are another issue and that can be handled with both of those options. If the OF community is supportive, they will subsidize the EF Mass. If the EF community is strong enough, they won’t need the financial help.
Charity and trust and good-will are needed on all sides.
N
NeelyAnn
Guest
Let’s revisit this:
Here is what Summorum Pontificum says:
*Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.
Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 õ 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”. *
Taking these 2 articles from Summorum Pontificum, along with the interviews granted by Cardinal Castrillon and Archbishop Ranjith, plus the responses from Ecclesia Dei (which there are more than I have psoted) - do you really think Ecclesia Dei would say that the faithful should consult the bishop if the priest is unable to provide the Mass if he did not have to try to provide it? And do you think they would say to contact them if the bishop is not able ot make it happen, if the bishop did not have try to make it happen? Do you really think Ecclesia Dei is looking to be swamped with letters from people saying they can’t get the Mass, if the people are not really entitled to it?
As for the money, does it go both ways? For instance, at my small OF diocesan parish, we have an EF (I attend the EF). We have less people at the EF than the OF on Sundays, but the EF attendees regularly contribute quite a bit more. Should we have to carry the parish? Also, it is a burden for the pastor to do 2 daily Masses each day. Hardly anyone, and sometimes no one, attends the OF daily Mass. I am not exaggerating at all. However, we have a confirmed number of people who are willing to attend a daily EF. That number is much more than what the OF gets. Should the OF be discontinued?
I ask this because you brought it up - so does it work both ways? Do we really want to handle things in this way? I don’t think we do.
- Status