Irrelevant bishops?

[Contarini]

And as Augustine (who was certainly never irrelevant, though not necessarily always correct) said ‘Rome has spoken, the case is closed’

Augustine was speaking about doctrine, not about liturgical custom (in his day Rome had not yet taken it into its collective head to try to micromanage the liturgical customs of the whole Church). And in fact a later Pope reopened the case, so that particular quote is really ironic and I chuckle whenever Catholics use it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin appears to me you are coming to some awfully profound conclusions based on an offhand comment from a poster for Catholic forum.

I’m happy to hear other Catholics say they disagree, or to hear Scotty say that he was speaking hyperbolically, though it’s hard for me to see how he was, given the context–he clearly did seem to think that the bishop simply had no business meddling between the Pope and a priest who wanted to celebrate the Mass of 1962.

Neither the bishop for the Pope are always infallible. If a bishop disagrees with the Pope on celebrating the Tridentine mass this does not undo the authority of the Church. This Bishop may find himself in big trouble when e makes his pastoral visit Rome or he may get a nasty letter but it doesn’t suddenly mean he pope really doesnt have the keys of the kingdom and the Pope has no authority

I don’t quite follow you here. Scotty’s argument was that the priest has every right simply to go ahead and ignore the bishop. That is what I’m objecting to. I do not think that a disagreement between the bishop and the Pope “undoes the authority of the Church.” My point is that as an Anglican, I see the Fathers articulating a concept of episcopal authority in which Rome speaks for the Church as a whole and disciplines unorthodox bishops, but in which there is no room for Rome simply and directly intervening to supersede the authority of the local bishop and render it “largely irrelevant,” particularly on issues where orthodoxy is not in question on either side.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

I’m happy to hear other Catholics say they disagree, or to hear Scotty say that he was speaking hyperbolically, though it’s hard for me to see how he was, given the context–he clearly did seem to think that the bishop simply had no business meddling between the Pope and a priest who wanted to celebrate the Mass of 1962.

I don’t quite follow you here. Scotty’s argument was that the priest has every right simply to go ahead and ignore the bishop. That is what I’m objecting to. I do not think that a disagreement between the bishop and the Pope “undoes the authority of the Church.” My point is that as an Anglican, I see the Fathers articulating a concept of episcopal authority in which Rome speaks for the Church as a whole and disciplines unorthodox bishops, but in which there is no room for Rome simply and directly intervening to supersede the authority of the local bishop and render it “largely irrelevant,” particularly on issues where orthodoxy is not in question on either side.

Edwin

Looks like I lost track of who was saying what. Sorry about that.

IMO an obsession with the Tridentine Mass can give rise to all sorts of strange opinions on Church Authority and who gets to do what.

In the end a Priest ignores his Bishop at great risk-regardless of much he may feel he has the backing of the Pope. Such a Priest would quickly find himself the new Pastor of goatlick outer mongolia where the locals never heard of the tridentine mass.

 

[scylla]

But that’s not the case here. Feeding the hungry is a sacred duty. Using the Missal of 1962 instead of the post-Vatican-II Missal is not (at least I assume that Scotty and I can agree on that–I recognize that many traditionalists would think differently). That’s why I picked on this issue.

Edwin

Worshipping God is a sacred duty and that is done for Catholics at our liturgy.

To state that it is wrong would be to be going against what the Pope has stated, in much the same way a Bishop discriminaing with whom you should feed would be wrong. It is basing the practice of faith based upon personal feeling not obedience to God. When a Bishop elevates personal prejudice\feelings above what is said by the Church then we should disregard his prejudice, all the while respecting his office.

My example was not the act of charity in feeding the hungry but the restriction of the practice in certain instances, based upon a personal prejudice.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Scotty_PGH]

But when the Pope prevents the bishop from deciding which of two orthodox rites will be used, and you say that the bishop’s opinion is irrelevant because the Pope has given permission, then I think we are clearly dealing with a denial of the historic Catholic view of the authority of the bishop (by “historic Catholic” I mean pre-Schism).

Let’s look at this from a different angle. The Church has said that altar girls in US churches is a topic best left up to the local bishop. Most bishops allow them. A few (thank God for them) do not. This is a matter of discipline that the Vatican has delegated to the bishops.

Celebration of the EF, on the other hand, was not left up to the bishops. The pope used his absolute right as Vicar of Christ to decree that there must be no impediment to the celebration of the EF, if a priest desires to offer it. To the extent that a bishop interferes with this, he is directly disobeying the pope and challenging his authority.

As these cases are addressed by the Ecclesia Dei commission (hopefully in short order), I believe this position will be clarified.

If the Pope declares the bishop to be a heretic,

This is not a matter of heresy, though, but rather of obedience.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

IMO an obsession with the Tridentine Mass can give rise to all sorts of strange opinions on Church Authority and who gets to do what.

Either you are ascribing “an obsession with the Tridentine Mass [sic]” to me, at which I take offense, or to a priest who would only wish to exercise the rights given to him by the Holy Father. Unfortunately, you were not clear, but either case in upsetting.

I will limit my involvement with this thread, since the topic has to do with Contarini’s view of episcopal authority, and I was really only dragged in here as a piece of anecdotal evidence. But let me make this clear to you, estesbob: The pope’s MP has made it clear that any priest may now offer the EF, with no further permission being required. Clearly he has profound reasons for doing so, both as it concerns the pastoral care of the faithful whom he has heard crying in the wilderness for 40 years, and for the future direction of the Church, which he is charged with governing. To brush aside this right and responsibility of priests and bishops as some sort of unhealthy obsession is patently offensive and more than a little naive.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Some might argue that this is off topic but I do not think so as it is a practical example of this discussion and how a lay persons opinion might not be what the Church actually says or teaches.

You are incorrect. I pointed out your error in the other thread, so I won’t bother to do it again here. The archbishops I mentioned above (who speak for the pope on the matter) and the document itself are clear: no permission is required, and no distinction is made between private and public. The bishop’s only role is to ensure that the faithful who request the EF are given the EF if their priest will not agree to.

Yes you have stated this opinion but when actually reading the MP I do not see any support for your opinion.

First the MP does not grant the laity the right of having the Mass celebrated in the Extraordinary Form. It only grants the priest the right to celebrate the Extraordinary Form privately (or semi-privately).

The MP actually says in regards to public celebration…

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.

It says that it is to be offered under the “guidance of the bishop”, to me that implies more than just the bishop being notified.

Canon 392 says…

Can. 392 §1 Since the Bishop must defend the unity of the universal Church, he is bound to foster the discipline which is common to the whole Church, and so press for the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.

§2 He is to ensure that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline, especially concerning the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the cult of the saints, and the administration of goods.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Some might argue that this is off topic but I do not think so as it is a practical example of this discussion and how a lay persons opinion might not be what the Church actually says or teaches.

And we thank you for illustrating this point with your post.

 

[Contarini]

Let’s look at this from a different angle. The Church has said that altar girls in US churches is a topic best left up to the local bishop. Most bishops allow them. A few (thank God for them) do not. This is a matter of discipline that the Vatican has delegated to the bishops.

Right. And that’s my problem. Where in the first thousand years of the Church do you find any support for the idea that the Pope gets to “delegate” matters of discipline to the bishops? They aren’t his to delegate in the first place. I picked on your use of the word “irrelevant” because it cuts through the complexities of Vatican I’s statement about the Pope having “universal ordinary jurisdiction” and nicely illustrates why Anglicans, Orthodox, and other non-Catholics have problems with this concept of papal authority. We typically argue that “universal ordinary jurisdiction” does make bishops irrelevant (except as middle managers to whom the Pope has “delegated” certain responsibilities).

This is a serious issue for me because I believe in papal primacy, and being in a Christian community not in union with Rome is deeply troubling for me. But then I look at the model of primacy operating in your Church and I find that troubling as well. Hence this thread.

I am sorry for cutting into your discussion of the Motu Proprio–I would actually have been quite happy to start this thread with no reference to you, but I thought it would be rude to quote you without acknowledgment. I am very happy for the Tridentine Mass to be made more widely available, by the way. I’m simply interested, as an Anglican deeply dissatisfied with our ecclesiological confusion, in the questions of church polity raised by the MP.

Back to your example of altar girls. I would have no problem with the Pope saying that altar girls were forbidden because the practice failed to express orthodox Catholicism (well, I’d have lots of problems theologically, as I do with the stance on women’s ordination, but I’d have no problems with his authority to do so). The reason this particular issue works as a test case is that clearly the Pope does not think that offering the 1962 Mass is necessary. Or perhaps you could make a case that without it being offered freely people would falsely believe that the theology found in it had been repudiated?

Hmmm. . . I’d better be careful or I will refute myself!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Worshipping God is a sacred duty and that is done for Catholics at our liturgy.

To state that it is wrong would be to be going against what the Pope has stated, in much the same way a Bishop discriminaing with whom you should feed would be wrong.

Are you saying that a bishop has no right to restrict which orthodox rite the priests in the diocese use? So if a priest chose to use the Liturgy of St. James, that would be OK? If a priest chose to pray extemporaneously as described by St. Justin Martyr, that would be OK? This makes no sense. You can’t really mean that. If you are simply saying that the Pope and not the bishop gets to make this call, then we are back to the question of whether the Fathers would agree. Can you seriously argue that they would?

Back to your example–a bishop does have the right, surely, to decide that the diocese’s resources will go toward this particular effort to feed the hungry rather than that. A bishop can close a church-run soup kitchen, right? Even if the faithful think he is wrong, they can’t simply disregard his decision as to how to feed the hungry.

I will grant that if the bishop made it clear that he was closing soup kitchens that ministered to people of a certain ethnic group because he really didn’t care about people of that group, then the faithful would be right to resist him. But that would be a grave suspicion that should only be entertained on very solid grounds.

Whether the bishop’s attitude to the “Latin Mass” is on the same level could be debated–but I recognize that there really is something to be said for the analogy.

That’s two solid arguments against my OP’s premise (or at least against my choice of this instance)! Maybe we’re actually getting somewhere on this thread. . . .

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

Either you are ascribing “an obsession with the Tridentine Mass [sic]” to me, at which I take offense, or to a priest who would only wish to exercise the rights given to him by the Holy Father. Unfortunately, you were not clear, but either case in upsetting.

I will limit my involvement with this thread, since the topic has to do with Contarini’s view of episcopal authority, and I was really only dragged in here as a piece of anecdotal evidence. But let me make this clear to you, estesbob: The pope’s MP has made it clear that any priest may now offer the EF, with no further permission being required. Clearly he has profound reasons for doing so, both as it concerns the pastoral care of the faithful whom he has heard crying in the wilderness for 40 years, and for the future direction of the Church, which he is charged with governing. To brush aside this right and responsibility of priests and bishops as some sort of unhealthy obsession is patently offensive and more than a little naive.

Let me be clear to you. If the bishop says a priest cannot celebrate the Tridentine Mass then the priest cannot celebrate it. He can of course appeal to Rome(at I suspect a great detriment to his career) but barring direct permission from the Vatican to go against his bishops will he must obey as bishop . To say the bishop’s opinion is irrelevant is totally contrary to Church teaching.

You may not like that but that is the way of authority works in the church .

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Let me be clear to you. If the bishop says a priest cannot celebrate the Tridentine Mass then the priest cannot celebrate it.

Let Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos be clear to you:

Cardinal Dario Castrillon-Hoyos-- the president of the Ecclesia Dei commission, which supervises Vatican outreach to traditionalist Catholics-- says that “from this point, priests can decide to celebrate the Mass using the old rite, **without permission from **the Holy See or the bishop.”

In an interview with Vatican Radio on September 13, broadcast just before the motu proprio officially took effect, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos explained that Pope Benedict’s motu proprio affirms the right of any priest to use the “extraordinary form” of the Latin liturgy. “It is, therefore, uncessary to ask for any other permission,” he said.
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53525

 

[Genesis315]

Even the Orthodox, who hold all bishops to be equal, would affirm that no bishop could command something contrary to canonical regulations and that a priest would be right in following the canons than his wayward bishop, because they are from a higher authority than an individual bishop.

It’s the same case here, the highest law of the Church does not permit a bishop to do what this bishop is doing. Therefore, he has exceeded his authority with this command and therefore it does not bind in conscience.

That being said, it might be more meritorious to obey, but it would not be a sin to obey (since by not using that missal, no church law or divine law would be violated, the bishop sins by commanding you not use it however). St. Bellarmine explain:

And what is still more admirable in this is, that even if a Superior
commits a sin in giving any order, a subject not only does not sin, but even obtains merit by his obedience provided the command itself is not manifestly against the law of God.

 

[estesbob]

Let Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos be clear to you:

And therefore priests under the jurisdiction of Castrillon-Hoyos can celebrate the Tridentine mass all they want to. However the local priest that was told by his bishop he cannot must acede to the authority of the HIS bishop. It is easy to use say that the tree should defy his bishop-your’e not the one who’s going to lose his job.

Have you talked to a diocesan priest about the relationship between them and their bishop?

 

[estesbob]

Even the Orthodox, who hold all bishops to be equal, would affirm that no bishop could command something contrary to canonical regulations and that a priest would be right in following the canons than his wayward bishop, because they are from a higher authority than an individual bishop.

It’s the same case here, the highest law of the Church does not permit a bishop to do what this bishop is doing. Therefore, he has exceeded his authority with this command and therefore it does not bind in conscience.

So we ignore the passage that says the Mass is celebrated under the guidance of the bishop?

 

[Genesis315]

So we ignore the passage that says the Mass is celebrated under the guidance of the bishop?

Put in context. They are there to serve it, to make sure it is done properly, not to ban it because they think it is useless. They are stewards of the liturgy. The bishop is not to forbid its use, but to assist the priests to be able to use it correctly.

If we interpret it the way you are, the MP is meaningless. It keeps the status quo. Of course, if we read it in its entirety, we see this is not the case.

 

[estesbob]

Put in context. They are there to serve it, to make sure it is done properly, not to ban it because they think it is useless. They are stewards of the liturgy. The bishop is not to forbid its use, but to assist the priests to be able to use it correctly.

If we interpret it the way you are, the MP is meaningless. It keeps the status quo. Of course, if we read it in its entirety, we see this is not the case.

And if the bishop disagrees with you the only recourse for the priest is to wait for the pope to tell the bishop is wrong.

My objection to all this is not that the bishops can ignore the MP- it’s that the priest cannot ignore the bishop.

 

[Genesis315]

Let me clarify too, that while it would not be a sin to go against a command that violates that of a higher authority, it may be a sin against prudence to not take certain routes. The best thing to do would be to appeal to a higher authority to specifically direct the erring lower authority.

Even if this hurts a “career,” priests are not priests because they want a career. They are priests to serve God, His truth, and His people no matter what the sacrifice. There have been many, many saints who were persecuted by even bishops for being uncompromisingly loyal to the Divine law and the laws of the Church. Sts. Basil, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Catherine of Siena, and many more come to mind. They would rather be scourged or cast into the exile in the desert.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Let Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos be clear to you:

Cardinal Dario Castrillon-Hoyos-- the president of the Ecclesia Dei commission, which supervises Vatican outreach to traditionalist Catholics-- says that "from this point, priests can decide to celebrate the Mass using the old rite,

Right and it is clear to any one reading the MP that this is only in the case of a private, or semi-private, celebration of the Extraordinary Form. It explicitly states that any private celebration must be done with the guidance of the bishop.

Nice how this is ignored by many. The Cardinal does not say that public celebration can be done with out the bishop, only that the priest is free to celebrate the EF and when one takes that statement and actually reads the MP they see that it applies to private, or semi-private, celebrations not public ones.

If one takes your point and runs with it then we can also say that the Cardinal is saying that a priest may celebrate the EF during the Easter Triduum which when we read the MP we see that this is not so.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

*** If one takes your point and runs with it then we can also say that the Cardinal is saying that a priest may celebrate the EF during the Easter Triduum which when we read the MP we see that this is not so***.

My goodness - you are a dangerous fountain of misinformation. This incorrect interpretation has been unambiguously corrected many times since the day the MP was released, on this forum, on Catholic blogs worldwide, even on EWTN. The only thing prohibited during the Easter Triduum is PRIVATE MASSES - both EF AND OF!!! How can you claim to have read the document honestly and carefully, yet you are one of the three people left in the world still making this erroneous claim?

Advice: Please step away from any discussion regarding the MP, the EF, the TLM. You have clearly demonstrated an unparalleled level of ignorance on those topics!