Italian bishop forbids Latin Mass despite motu proprio

[rpp]

otjm;2737933:

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?

I do not want this question to get lost in the thread. A direct answer would be appropriate.

 

[otjm]

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?

That is not exactly what I said; I have said the bishop has to accomodate them; but how that will be accomplished will not be dictated by the parish members.

And example for anothe thread: the poster asked the parish priest if one (EF) would be offered. The priest said that he had had 4 requests;the OP was the fourth; and this was out of a parish of more than 7000 (I just repeat the comments, I don’t vouch for the veracity). Assuming for the moment that there are 10 times as many - 40; that doesn’t really bode well for replacing one of the Sunday OF Masses. In addition, Canon law regulates how many Masses a priest can say on a day.

So it may well be that the bishop could say that given these circumstances, it might be better if several parishes join together to have one EF Mass on Sunday. In short, if the priest decided that for four, or forty in this circumstance he was going to either change one of the OF Masses to an EF, or was going to add one Mass (and I would presume under the circumstances that he would have to ask for permission to say one more on Sunday), then, yes, under these circumstances I think the bishop could say “no” to a specific request. The bishop still has the duty to accomodate those asking; but the MP doesn’t say how that is to be accomplished specifically.

Many have taken the MP to say that the bishop has to agree to all requests. The MP doesn’t say that.

 

[rpp]

That is not exactly what I said; I have said the bishop has to accomodate them; but how that iwll be accomplished will not be dictated by the parish membes.

And example for anothe thread: the poster asked the parish priest if one (EF) would be offered. The priest said that he had had 4 requests;the OP was the fourth; and this was out of a parish of more than 7000 (I just repeat the comments, I don’t vouch for the veracity). Assuming for the moment that there are 10 times as many - 40; that doesn’t really bode well for replacing one of the Sunday OF Masses. In addition, Canon law regulates how many Masses a priest can say on a day.

So it may well be that the bishop could say that given these circumstances, it might be better if several parishes join together to have one EF Mass on Sunday. In short, if the priest decided that for four, or forty in this circumstance he was going to either change one of the OF Masses to an EF, or was going to add one Mass (and I would presume under the circumstances that he would have to ask for permission to say one more on Sunday), then, yes, under these circumstances I think the bishop could say “no” to a specific request. The bishop still has the duty to accomodate those asking; but the MP doesn’t say how that is to be accomplished specifically.

Many have taken the MP to say that the bishop has to agree to all requests. The MP doesn’t say that.

Where does SP say that the priest must make a request from his bishop? The fact is he does not. The bishop can only step in if there are problems regarding liturgical abuse (Canon 392). But that is true for both forms.

The only accommodation that the bishop must do is to ensure that priests are properly trained and qualified to say the Mass.

Your interpretation is incorrect.

Summorum Pontificum was discussed at length and quite throughly immediately after its release. Your interpretation was discussed and it was made clear that the bishop had no authority to halt an EF Mass unless there were abuses or a reasonable expectation of liturgical abuse, which is not the stated reason in this case.

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

---

Yes under the guidiance—But what you are still overlooking is the clarification of what that guidance means. His guidance is embodied in resolving liturgical conflicts that may arise—but his power is not to be used to negate the right the Pope has given.

"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.”

 

[otjm]

I have the feeling that I may have hit a raw nerve, and also have contradicted what some people thing the MP says.

I am not so naieve as to think that there may not be a few bishops who do not want to make any accomodations to the MP. But I also know that bishops who are considered “liberal” have been inundated by comments about this or that matter, and that not a few of those making the comments have taken them to Rome. The whole issue of disputes between bishops and parishoners is not new; it has been going on for about as long as we have had the OF.

The net result is that this Pope has made it clear that he intends to increase the availability of the EF, and that there is a commission in place to deal with charges that the matters have not been fairly treated.

The fear that somehow the bishops, whoever they are, are going to prohibit priests who are capable of saying the EF from doing so in some manner in public settings I think is overblown, if for no other reason than that the bishops have already had to deal with people who are willing to write to Rome. Once bit, twice afraid is still a very real reaction.

Obviously the first issue will be what is the definition of “capable”. I saw at least one suggestion that all the priest had to do was be able to pronounce the Latin correctly (i.e. have no understanding of the language, just be able to parrot with correct pronunciation). I seriously doubt that will fly anywhere, Rome included. How we are going to get priests who have had no Latin to be proficient with the equivalent of a two year college course of Latin, I don’t know, but that is what used to be required as a minimum. And given the general shortage of priests and the workload most carry, I don’t know where the spare time will come.

Then we have the whole issue of “stable group” and what that means. That, I suspect, will vary by parish and probably come out to either a minimum number of continual attendants (for example, where several parishes join for one Mass), or a minimum percentage to either add one Mass at a parish or convert one OF to an EF.

It will take time to work it all out; but a careful reading of the MP indicates the bishop is going to have a say in the matter of public Masses.

 

[otjm]

Where does SP say that the priest must make a request from his bishop? The fact is he does not. The bishop can only step in if there are problems regarding liturgical abuse (Canon 392). But that is true for both forms.

The only accommodation that the bishop must do is to ensure that priests are properly trained and qualified to say the Mass.

Your interpretation is incorrect.

Summorum Pontificum was discussed at length and quite throughly immediately after its release. Your interpretation was discussed and it was made clear that the bishop had no authority to halt an EF Mass unless there were abuses or a reasonable expectation of liturgical abuse, which is not the stated reason in this case.

You are welcome to think my interpretation is incorrect; I think other interpretations are incorrect. The ultimate decider has not spoken in context. That is the commission, Cardinal Hoya’s responses to news reporter questions to the contrary.

 

[francesco920]

It will take time to work it all out; but a careful reading of the MP indicates the bishop is going to have a say in the matter of public Masses.

Yes, the bishop will have a say in the matter of public masses according to the missal of Blessed John XXIII…the same say he has in public masses according to the missal of John Paul II.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

It will take time to work it all out; but a careful reading of the MP indicates the bishop is going to have a say in the matter of public Masses.

False. The MP says exactly the opposite.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

You are welcome to think my interpretation is incorrect; I think other interpretations are incorrect. The ultimate decider has not spoken in context. That is the commission, Cardinal Hoya’s responses to news reporter questions to the contrary.

His name is Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos (not Hoya), and he spoke fully in context. Now we shall see how quickly he backs up his statements by taking the action necessary to correct this rebellious bishop.

 

[Corki]

Obviously the first issue will be what is the definition of “capable”. I saw at least one suggestion that all the priest had to do was be able to pronounce the Latin correctly (i.e. have no understanding of the language, just be able to parrot with correct pronunciation). I seriously doubt that will fly anywhere, Rome included. How we are going to get priests who have had no Latin to be proficient with the equivalent of a two year college course of Latin, I don’t know, but that is what used to be required as a minimum. And given the general shortage of priests and the workload most carry, I don’t know where the spare time will come.

I do not think that a two year college course of Latin will be required for priests to be able to say the EF Mass. For one thing, that was a seminary requirement and meant, if I am not mistaken, to provide priests with a rudimentary knowledge of Latin in order to read Church documents. The level of Latin that would be needed to celebrate Mass, reading the unchangeable words, is much less.

Secondly, and I am not the first one to point this out, it has never been a requirement that the priest understand the language in order to celebrate Mass. I have been to many Masses in English celebrated by priests who could not hold even a simple conversation in English. Priests in mission countries encounter this problem all the time as do visiting priests.

 

[otjm]

---

Yes under the guidiance—But what you are still overlooking is the clarification of what that guidance means. His guidance is embodied in resolving liturgical conflicts that may arise—but his power is not to be used to negate the right the Pope has given.

Nothing in the MP gives the members of a parish an absolute right to the EF. The MP says that the bishop is to give guidance, and to seek to accomodate the needs of the faithful. Not having a Mass at one parish, or having it at a certain time is not a negation of the MP. The Pope himself in his letter indicted that he foresaw that it would be extrordinary and limited if for no other reason that availability of priests to say it. Niether in his letter nor in the MP did he make the EF mandatory in any given situation. He did say that people were to be “accomodated” and not how that was to be accomplished.

"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.”

And nothing I have said goes against that. There is a right to have the EF said; there is not a right to have it said according to the dictates of either a priest or specific parish members. They are to be accomodated.

All I have said is that the bishop has the authority in certain circumstances to deny a specific application; to say otherwise is to say that he has no authority to “resolve liturgical conflicts”. Just because a group of people want something specific doesn’t mean that will be done. That something will be done, yes; that the specific will be done, no.

 

[Walking_Home]

Nothing in the MP gives the members of a parish an absolute right to the EF. The MP says that the bishop is to give guidance, and to seek to accomodate the needs of the faithful. Not having a Mass at one parish, or having it at a certain time is not a negation of the MP. The Pope himself in his letter indicted that he foresaw that it would be extrordinary and limited if for no other reason that availability of priests to say it. Niether in his letter nor in the MP did he make the EF mandatory in any given situation. He did say that people were to be “accomodated” and not how that was to be accomplished.

And nothing I have said goes against that. There is a right to have the EF said; there is not a right to have it said according to the dictates of either a priest or specific parish members. They are to be accomodated.

All I have said is that the bishop has the authority in certain circumstances to deny a specific application; to say otherwise is to say that he has no authority to “resolve liturgical conflicts”. Just because a group of people want something specific doesn’t mean that will be done. That something will be done, yes; that the specific will be done, no.

---

Where you are still falling of the edge–is in that negating the use of the EF should not be used to resolve conflicts. It was made clear that what ever a bishop does—negating the right–is not within a bishops lawfull exercise of power.

"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.”

 

[otjm]

---

Where you are still falling of the edge–is in that negating the use of the EF should not be used to resolve conflicts. It was made clear that what ever a bishop does—negating the right–is not within a bishops lawfull exercise of power.

"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.”

Excuse me, I havn’t fallen off any edges.

Removing one Mass on one day at one parish or shrine is not “negating the right”. It is cancelling one Mass. Let’s get over the drama.

I do not agree with the bishop as to his commentary in general about the EF. I do not posit that the bishop cancelled for the right reason, or a valid reason; I do not trust the press enought o be satisfied with what was told. However, his comments belie a veryneagitve attitude towards the EF.

Having said that, he cancelled one Mass. Keep a little perspective, please. That is not “negating a right”, for crying out loud.

And I never said that a bishop should “negate the use” of the EF to resolve conflicts. Canon 392 sets out the bishop’s authority, and the MP specifically sets the public use of the MP in Article 5 as guided by the bishop in acordance with Canon 392. Deciding that a specific Mass schedule my not be the best approach to the EF is hardly “negating” a right; it is within Canon 392.

If a bishop should severely limit the use of the MP; of example, ignoring the number of faithful who may be questioning it and allowing one only in a 50 mile radius, for example, I would say that he was fast approaching negating the right. There is a tad bit of difference between the two. and I would think that such a move would be clearly appealable; but everyone would need to have all their ducks in a row - for example, a legitimate survey establishing how many people in the parishes encompassed in such an area wanted the EF.

 

[universalindult]

Cardinal Hoyos stated,

"priests can decide, without permission from the Holy See or the bishop, to celebrate the Mass in the ancient rite. And this holds true for all priests…It is not therefore necessary to ask any other permission…The Code of Canon Law says who must give permission to say Mass and it is not the bishop: The bishop gives the “celebret,” the power to be able to celebrate * both the old and new forms of the rite*], but when a priest has this power, it is the parish priest and the chaplain who must grant the altar to celebrate. If anyone impedes him, it is up to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in the name of the Holy Father, to take measures until **this right **is respected…The Pope does not impose the obligation; the Pope does impose offering this possibility where the faithful request it. If there is a conflict, the authority of the bishop must intervene to avoid it, but without canceling the right that the Pope gave to the entire Church.”

How could this possibly be any more clear?!?

Why the attempts to cloud what is so obvious?!?

The statements by Cardinal Hoyos also need to be read in light of the further clarifications made last weekend by Archbishop Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship:

"I am certain that above all the bishops, who at the moment of assuming their episcopal ministry have professed their complete loyalty and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff, will accept this decision with sentiments of generous collaboration and will safeguard the faithful implementation of the instructions of the Motu Proprio in the manner in which it is assigned to them, respecting the specific identities of the two manners of celebrating.

…it is the Church who celebrates the liturgy: adoration and praise of its Lord, as his people. Because of this ecclesial dimension, in the words of the Council in “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, “no one else at all, be he even a priest, shall add, subtract or change anything on his own initiative in matters liturgical.” The current problem is a spirit of disorder in the liturgical discipline, widely spread in different parts of the world. This situation is the result of a defective liturgical formation on different levels. Various priests do not know the true meaning of what is celebrated and propagate a “do it yourself” liturgy.

Unfortunately, in some cases** even the bishops themselves have become immobile and inconsistent, passively tolerating this situation or even, in some rare cases encouraging such attitudes**. And then there are rather pedantic attitudes of some theorists, who have unfortunately forgotten that the liturgy is not so much an intellectual act as an act of adoration, and therefore of profound spirituality and faith.

Some of the major changes in the liturgy have never been wished for by the Council. The banalisation of the eternal mysteries of the liturgy, achieved and justified by some liturgists, is now creating a growing demand to abandon altogether the earthly aspects…"

The language employed by Cardinal Hoyos and Archbishop Ranjith is absolutely clear: no attempts to undermine the right of priests to offer the EF, without the need to ask permission of the bishop, will be tolerated.

Cardinal Hoyos specifically referred to the “celebret” as the only means of control. That celebret applies equally to both the OF and the EF. Any attempt to make a distinction between the two, and impose restrictions on either, is beyond the authority of the local bishop.

The key to interpreting the canon law implications discussed in this thread has clearly been given. Its all about the celebret. That is the only control left in the hands of the bishop. If he has granted a celebret, he cannot stop the priest from using that celebret to offer either the OF or the EF.

 

[otjm]

Well, I guess time will tell, won’t it? If there are instances such as with the Italian bishop and no appeals, the matter will only be a series of opinions; even if that opinion is the good Cardinal’s - there is a difference between a statment and a decision.

And if there are appeals, then it will be a matter of reading what the actual decision is, rather than some statement in the press as to what the decision said or meant.

and we are left with the statment in Article 5 that says the matter is with the guidance of the bishop; and you state that the guidance means that he cannot guide. Interesting.

 

[universalindult]

and we are left with the statment in Article 5 that says the matter is with the guidance of the bishop; and you state that the guidance means that he cannot guide. Interesting.

He can guide; he cannot forbid.

His celebret applies equally to both, and the interpretation of canon law in this regard is being dictated by Cardinal Hoyos, under the authority and with the express directive of the Pope – not the local bishop.

The Pope was forced to use this conciliatory language to get Summorum Pontificum published, without open schism.

Now that Summorum Pontificum is a fait accompli, Cardinal Hoyos and Ecclesia Dei have complete and total rein to close these loopholes that disobedient bishops are attempting to impose on its application. There will be no threat of open schism now when Ecclesia Dei quietly publishes the dubia wholly cutting off these attempts to subvert the spirit and letter of Summorum Pontificum.

 

[universalindult]

Now that Summorum Pontificum is a fait accompli, Cardinal Hoyos and Ecclesia Dei have complete and total rein to close these loopholes that disobedient bishops are attempting to impose on its application. There will be no threat of open schism now when Ecclesia Dei quietly publishes the dubia wholly cutting off these attempts to subvert the spirit and letter of Summorum Pontificum.

One other point:

Ecclesia Dei is a finite group, with limited manpower. They will not be able to put an end to these rebellious efforts overnight.

Until they do close these loopholes, there is a very good post on a thread at Fr. Z.'s blog that should be noted:

Shortly after SP was issued I had a discussion with a (very) sympathetic bishop about the details of the document and how it would be implemented. His opinion is that the Pope anticipated the sorts of tactics which would be used by certain of his brethren to obstruct its implementation. Accordingly, the provision for private Masses and the existence of a “group” for requesting public Masses are closely linked: the “group” would develop its attachment to the EF by attending these private Masses, the parish priest would gain familiarity with the celebration of the EF - and with the group – as the group grew and coalesced. At some point they would represent a stable “known quantity” within the parish and it would be much easier to inaugurate a regularly-scheduled public celebration of the EF.

This is logical and perhaps it is quite obvious to everyone, however I thought it really illustrates that Pope Benedict really knew what he was doing. Now we shall see how Rome responds to these attampts at obstruction and intimidation…

This whole battle has already been anticipated, but like any chess game, pieces must be moved into place, and everything must go by turns.

 

[TAquinas]

Obviously the Holy Father wished to make the extraordinary form of the mass more available to the faithful— Otherwise, why bother with a motu propio like that? If he had wanted for the Tridentine Mass to be unavailable for the vast majority of Catholics, he could have just left things the way they were. Throwing up roadblocks toward the implementation of the motu propio is clearly circumventing the will of the Holy Father.

 

[otjm]

Obviously the Holy Father wished to make the extraordinary form of the mass more available to the faithful— Otherwise, why bother with a motu propio like that? If he had wanted for the Tridentine Mass to be unavailable for the vast majority of Catholics, he could have just left things the way they were. Throwing up roadblocks toward the implementation of the motu propio is clearly circumventing the will of the Holy Father.

And that presumes that anything that is done is a roadblock? I don’t agree; I think there can be legitimate issues which can have differing possible conclusions that do not mean that anything is being “negated” or that a “roadblock” is being constructed.

I understand that because many bishops did not make the EF widely available that there are a large number of people who doubt anything that a bishop might do or not do. But doubt does not necessarily mean that anything done by a bishop that someone does not agree with is automatically wrong.

It might be well to keep in mind that the Church consists of more than just the population of Catholics in the United States. Much has been said about, for example, the bishops in France; and it is said by people who have never even been to France, let alone lived in a diocese there. whether their protests were right or wrong will work itself out over time. The MP is set for a review in three years. It will all sort itself out. There is obviously a clear path for appealing any issue that is perceived as in violation, something that has not been as clearly set for other issues liturgically.

 

[otjm]

He can guide; he cannot forbid.

His celebret applies equally to both, and the interpretation of canon law in this regard is being dictated by Cardinal Hoyos, under the authority and with the express directive of the Pope – not the local bishop.

The Pope was forced to use this conciliatory language to get Summorum Pontificum published, without open schism.

Now that Summorum Pontificum is a fait accompli, Cardinal Hoyos and Ecclesia Dei have complete and total rein to close these loopholes that disobedient bishops are attempting to impose on its application. There will be no threat of open schism now when Ecclesia Dei quietly publishes the dubia wholly cutting off these attempts to subvert the spirit and letter of Summorum Pontificum.

Has there been a dubium submitted? I have not heard of one yet, but then, I haven’t had the opportunity to follow national and international news on the issue.