Italian bishop forbids Latin Mass despite motu proprio

[PapaSquash]

Not taking a shot at you Caesar, but using your comment as a place to say something I have learned over the years working in business hierarchies. Your immediate boss is the guy you need to obey because he controls all your rewards and punishments. Unless he asks you to do something absolutely immoral, it is smart to obey. The guy higher up will support his subordinate and will not usually come to your rescue unless it could bring on a lawsuit if he doesn’t. Maybe not very good, but that’s how the system usually works.

In the secular world I agree with you; this is accurate, but Caesar isn’t asking what is smart or politically useful, he’s asking what is right. In the eternal scheme of things it isn’t your immediate superior who controls the “rewards and punishments” that really matter.

That said, I agree with RobNY. The priest should go through channels. There does apear to be some obligation in the MP for providing the EF if

…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.

So ignoring such a group at the directive of your Bishop does put you in a tough spot regarding the MP. What constitues a “stable group” is an open question, and one could argue (wrongly, I think)against anybody adhering to the earlier liturgical tradition in an environment in which it was suppressed.

 

[Genesis315]

This brings up an interesting dilemna…

Priests mustg be obedient to their bishops, but what if the bishop is not submitting to the will of the Holy Father?

A higher authority trumps a lower one. If the Supreme Pontiff tells you one thing and the local bishop something contradictory, you are not obliged to obey the local bishop as he has exceded his authority. That being said, since the MP is not a command, but a permission, while it would still not be sinful to disobey the bishop, it also may be the most prudential thing to heed his request for the time being and pursue other avenues of appeal rather than out-and-out ignorning him (it depends on ths situation).

I read something from St. Robert Bellarmine that discussed an interesting situation of which I could not think of a real-life example. But this seems to be one:

“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.”

 

[pprimeau1976]

I read the article and I wish the article would go more in depth. First, it claims that this Bishop “forbade” the celebration of the Latin mass. Now, how exactly did he “forbid” that the mass be said? Do we know that the Bishop intends to never allow the Latin Mass to be said? Maybe the Bishop had concerns over the preparedness of the priest.

The bishop said that he was taking action to help his people pray properly, since** “to mumble in Latin serves no purpose.”**

I wish there was a better understanding of what was going on. When I read this article, I thought that it was slanted, just due to the lack of detail given.

I know the mass needs to be more reverent, but I don’t think we should jump to conclusions and play the victim.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

. I have to say, I don’t see that kind of loyalty in threads like this, and I for one am scandalized by it.

You should be. That bishop’s action is the definition of disloyalty!

 

[otjm]

Did you read the MP? Point me to that section please.

Try Article 5 Section one: …“under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392…”

It should be patently obvious that the bishop cannot give guidance if he is not involved.

I make no comment as to the propriety or correctness of the comments the bishop is reported to have said. The question has been raised, does the bishop have any authority in the matter. It has been asserted he does not. Article 5 seems to say otherwise. It is illogical to say that any priest may say a public Mass without at least impliedly ahving the bishop’s guidance in the matter if they are going to compy with Article 5; and that guidance could say that in certain circumstances it may not go forward.

The second question may be whether or not the bishop was improper in denying the Mass be said publicly; and there is insufficient information to know what the bishop is going to do in general, let alone in specific. If the tenro or his comments shows that he will not allow any public Masses in the EF to be siad, that is a matter for the Commission.

But the comments made that the bishop has no say fly in the face of the issue of guidance, as set forth in the Article 5.

 

[otjm]

Umm, no. This does not in any way suggest that the bishop needs to be asked for permission. READ:

It certainly implies it. The bishop cannot give guidance if everything is done as if he does not exist.

What this does say is that parish priests should take pastoral care of the requesting parishioners under the guidance of the bishop. It would be more accurate to say, “If the faithful request the EF, the parish priest must provide it and the bishop must see to it that they are given it. If that priest cannot offer the EF, then the bishop should find someone who can.” That is PRECISELY what this section is addressing, and it is reinforced in Article 7!:

Again, you are presuming that there is no interfacing at all with the bishop. He still has controll over the liturgical functions. If a priest who was in favor of the EF tried to impose it on a parish of large size because a small minority wanted it, there would be chaos, and the issue would immediately be in the bishop’s lap. For example, elsewhere someone noted having asked his pastor; 4 people out of a prish of more than 7000 had asked for the Mass. Assuming the priest was well in favor of it, and only 4 wanted it, I seriously doubt that the MP envisioned a Sunday Mass being chaged from the OF to the EF. This is where the bishop’s guidance comes in. The wish of the 4 needs to be accomodated, but not at their dictation.

Again, there is no reasonable way to conclude that “under the guidance of the bishop” calls for him to be asked to give permission. Instead, it highlights his role in guaranteeing the rights of the faithful to be given the EF when they request it.

Sorry, his duty is to all the parishoners, not just the EF, and he does have the ability to guide the issue, in particular with public Masses. The MP only leaves the bishop out of the issue for private Masses.

I urge everyone here to read this whole document and discover the truth, rather than accept these twisted, agenda-ridden interpretations.

I do too; there are agenda-ridden interpretations on both sides.

 

[Sure]

Try Article 5 Section one: …“under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392…”

It should be patently obvious that the bishop cannot give guidance if he is not involved.

I make no comment as to the propriety or correctness of the comments the bishop is reported to have said. The question has been raised, does the bishop have any authority in the matter. It has been asserted he does not. Article 5 seems to say otherwise. It is illogical to say that any priest may say a public Mass without at least impliedly ahving the bishop’s guidance in the matter if they are going to compy with Article 5; and that guidance could say that in certain circumstances it may not go forward.

The second question may be whether or not the bishop was improper in denying the Mass be said publicly; and there is insufficient information to know what the bishop is going to do in general, let alone in specific. If the tenro or his comments shows that he will not allow any public Masses in the EF to be siad, that is a matter for the Commission.

But the comments made that the bishop has no say fly in the face of the issue of guidance, as set forth in the Article 5.

Excellent point!

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Folks - I guess the text itself is not clear enough for some of you, so I will quote the words of Cardinal Hoyos himself. He is the president of the Ecclesia Dei commission – the body that will be handling all EF matters on behalf of the pope, in case you did not know.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53525

No more permission needed for Latin Mass, cardinal says
Rome, Sep. 14, 2007 (CWNews.com) - With the formal implementation of Summorum Pontificum, the Pope’s motu proprio providing wider access to the 1962 Roman Missal, diocesan priests do not need permission to celebrate the Latin Mass, a top Vatican official has stated.

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, unnecessary to ask for any other permission,” he said.

Some diocesan bishops have cautioned their priests against using the 1962 Missal without explicit permission from the diocese. But the president of the Ecclesia Dei commission-- which would hear any appeals regarding the new liturgical rules-- contradicted that notion in his Vatican Radio appearance. While affirming the bishop’s authority to resolve any liturgical conflicts within his diocese, the Colombian cardinal said that the bishop should exercise that power “without negating the right that the Pope has given to the entire Church.”

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos said that the motu proprio involves “no big change” in the liturgy of the Roman Church, since the older liturgy was never banned. Vatican II affirmed the freedoms of the faithful, he said, and one such freedom, which Pope Benedict has now confirmed, was access to the older liturgical form.

“Nothing is imposed on anyone” by Summorum Pontificum, the cardinal said. In allowing for greater use of the old Missal, he explained, Pope Benedict is merely “opening a possibility to the faithful who request it.”

 

[mtr01]

It certainly implies it. The bishop cannot give guidance if everything is done as if he does not exist.

Not to fan the flames of dichord, but when I read the article:

Art. 5. õ 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 really only seems to me that it’s saying the pastoral care of the parish is under the guidance of the bishop.

 

[Walking_Home]

Folks - I guess the text itself is not clear enough for some of you, so I will quote the words of Cardinal Hoyos himself. He is the president of the Ecclesia Dei commission – the body that will be handling all EF matters on behalf of the pope, in case you did not know.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53525

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, unnecessary to ask for any other permission,” he said.

Some diocesan bishops have cautioned their priests against using the 1962 Missal without explicit permission from the diocese. But the president of the Ecclesia Dei commission-- which would hear any appeals regarding the new liturgical rules-- contradicted that notion in his Vatican Radio appearance. While affirming the bishop’s authority to resolve any liturgical conflicts within his diocese, the Colombian cardinal said that the bishop should exercise that power "without negating the right that the Pope has given to the entire Church."

---

Just by reading the above — it is clear that a bishop should not use his power to negate the right the Pope has given. Taking this into account — one can see that said bishop negated the right the Pope has given—by using the excuse that apparently he was not notified.

 

[otjm]

Folks - I guess the text itself is not clear enough for some of you, so I will quote the words of Cardinal Hoyos himself. He is the president of the Ecclesia Dei commission – the body that will be handling all EF matters on behalf of the pope, in case you did not know.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53525

I just love it when someone quotes something out of context to make their point.

His comment is correct as to any priest saying the EF privately; they no longer need permission.

The MP does not say specifically that a priest needs to have the permission of the bishop to say a public Mass in the EF; however, it does say that public Masses are said “under the guidance of the bishop” and the plain meaning is that the bishop has some say in the matter, your opinion not withstanding.

As I said, there are people on both sides with an agenda. There are some whose attitude is “we are going to do what we want and you can’t stop us”. I am sure that is not your attitude. But a plain reading of the MP coupled with the Canon specifically set out still leaves overall liturgical direction with the bishop. To say that he could not intervene is to make the plain language of the MP meaningless, and given the smarts of the current Pope, I am fairly sure he is amply capable of saying what he means, and of not putting in extraneous and meaningless comments in his documents.

Note: I have not said that the bishop can deny a specific Mass under the EF for any reason at all or no reason at all. Neither am I saying that the published comments of the bishop in question come within the intent of the MP.

I am simply saying that it is within the “guidance of the bishop” to say that he may decide a specific Mass, or a specific schedule, may not be in the best interest of all; he still has a duty to accomodate those wishing the EF. But that accomodation is not at the dictates of either a priest or those requesting the EF.

Cardinal Hoya is an intelligent man; and his comment needs to be given in the context not only of his whole discussion of the matter but also the context of the MP on its face and Canon law, and not one quoted comment. Taking one comment (which is absolutely correct as to private Masses) and presuming it applies to the entire MP is simply wrong; if the MP intended to say that public Masses could be said without any permission, the Pope certainly could have done so, since he obviously did so as to private Masses. The very fact that he did so with private Masses and did not do so with public Masses, but instead said “under the guidance of the bishop” should make obvious that the same does not apply.

 

[rpp]

I just love it when someone quotes something out of context to make their point.

His comment is correct as to any priest saying the EF privately; they no longer need permission.

The MP does not say specifically that a priest needs to have the permission of the bishop to say a public Mass in the EF; however, it does say that public Masses are said “under the guidance of the bishop” and the plain meaning is that the bishop has some say in the matter, your opinion not withstanding.

As I said, there are people on both sides with an agenda. There are some whose attitude is “we are going to do what we want and you can’t stop us”. I am sure that is not your attitude. But a plain reading of the MP coupled with the Canon specifically set out still leaves overall liturgical direction with the bishop. To say that he could not intervene is to make the plain language of the MP meaningless, and given the smarts of the current Pope, I am fairly sure he is amply capable of saying what he means, and of not putting in extraneous and meaningless comments in his documents.

Note: I have not said that the bishop can deny a specific Mass under the EF for any reason at all or no reason at all. Neither am I saying that the published comments of the bishop in question come within the intent of the MP.

I am simply saying that it is within the “guidance of the bishop” to say that he may decide a specific Mass, or a specific schedule, may not be in the best interest of all; he still has a duty to accomodate those wishing the EF. But that accomodation is not at the dictates of either a priest or those requesting the EF.

Cardinal Hoya is an intelligent man; and his comment needs to be given in the context not only of his whole discussion of the matter but also the context of the MP on its face and Canon law, and not one quoted comment. Taking one comment (which is absolutely correct as to private Masses) and presuming it applies to the entire MP is simply wrong; if the MP intended to say that public Masses could be said without any permission, the Pope certainly could have done so, since he obviously did so as to private Masses. The very fact that he did so with private Masses and did not do so with public Masses, but instead said “under the guidance of the bishop” should make obvious that the same does not apply.

So the gist of what you are saying is that for the faithful who wish their parish to have a Latin Mass, the Bishop can still stop it. Then what on Earth is the purpose of the Summunorum Pontificum?

 

[Sure]

So the gist of what you are saying is that for the faithful who wish their parish to have a Latin Mass, the Bishop can still stop it. Then what on Earth is the purpose of the Summunorum Pontificum?

Then why mention Canon 392 and the bishop? Were they just kidding about that?

 

[otjm]

---

Just by reading the above — it is clear that a bishop should not use his power to negate the right the Pope has given. Taking this into account — one can see that said bishop negated the right the Pope has given—by using the excuse that apparently he was not notified.

While I do not make any statement at all that the bishop in the current conversation made a decidion to deny this specific Mass for a correct reason - his comments seem to indicate otherwise - let’s not go overboard, either.

People have a right to have Mass said in the EF; but it is not an absolute right. The rights of the Italians in that diocese have not been “negated”. That would only be done if the Bishop issued a rule that no Masses in the EF may be said publicly. What he did is say that a specific public Mass could not be said.

There are two issues at play: 1) does a bishop have any right to control in any way the saying of the EF publicly; and 2) if so, was it doen for the right reasons herein.

The MP says that the EF may be said publicly “under the guidance of the bishop”; to say that no one has any duty to tell the bishop about a public Mass under the EF simply makes no sense if the bishop is to guide. If the bishop gives guidance, and part of that guidance is to make some limitations, that does not mean that the bishop is not following the MP. Any limitations will need to have reasoning behind them that can show why they are imposed; but the MP does not say that the EF may be said publicly without permission of the bishop; that is granted only to private Masses.

As to the second issue at play, it appears that the bishop does not want to grant permission for any EF Masses, but he has not said he won’t. If he is too restrictive, the matter can be resolved by the Commission. But some restriction may be possible without any rights being negated.

And as I noted elsewhere, a comment out of context of the full conversation is not proof of much of anything.

 

[rpp]

Then why mention Canon 392 and the bishop? Were they just kidding about that?

You mean this Canon 392?

Can. 392
§1. Since he must protect the unity of the universal Church, a bishop is bound to promote the common discipline of the whole Church and therefore to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.

§2. He is to exercise vigilance so that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline, especially regarding the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the saints, and the administration of goods.

So the bishop is supposed to ensure that no liturgical abuse is going on. That is reasonable.

Code of Canon Law.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1E.HTM

 

[Scotty_PGH]

The MP does not say specifically that a priest needs to have the permission of the bishop to say a public Mass in the EF; however, it does say that public Masses are said “under the guidance of the bishop”

False. The proof is in the quoted sections above.

There honestly is nothing else I can add to this thread. The pope’s will is expressed plainly in SP as quoted above, and in the words of the ED president. It is there for all to see.

 

[VociMike]

The MP does not say specifically that a priest needs to have the permission of the bishop to say a public Mass in the EF; however, it does say that public Masses are said “under the guidance of the bishop” and the plain meaning is that the bishop has some say in the matter, your opinion not withstanding.

Canon 392 has been quoted here, and the purpose is clearly to make sure Church law is followed and abuses do not occur. Thus, for example, some bishops have published requirements that most people would find reasonable (especially if applied to the Novus Ordo Masses equally), such as evidence that the priest is actually qualified to say the Mass properly. It may even be reasonable for a bishop to request the times and locations of EF Masses (he will surely already have such information for all normally-scheduled NO Masses as well). But none of this is the same as the bishop requiring that the priest get his permission first. The entire history of the MP is about allowing these Masses to be said without requiring the permission of the bishops.

 

[johnknoesel]

Folks - I guess the text itself is not clear enough for some of you, so I will quote the words of Cardinal Hoyos himself. He is the president of the Ecclesia Dei commission – the body that will be handling all EF matters on behalf of the pope, in case you did not know.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53525

Ok, by reading this I wonder if the Cardinal has give the Bishop a real strong talking to. I hope so and I hope that the parish and their priest will be allowed to celebrate the old right.

 

[Sure]

False. The proof is in the quoted sections above.

There honestly is nothing else I can add to this thread. The pope’s will is expressed plainly in SP as quoted above, and in the words of the ED president. It is there for all to see.

Then why did SP mention the Bishop and Canon 392?

 

[rpp]

Then why did SP mention the Bishop and Canon 392?

This has already been answered. Canon 392 addresses the area of liturgical abuse. Not permission to say a Mass.

As has been already mentioned, it is to remind the bishop and warn the priest that the bishop is responsible for ensuring the Mass is done properly.