Italian bishop forbids Latin Mass despite motu proprio

[Catholic29]

And the Bishop’s rationale for banning the TLM:

Il Messagero said that Bishop Nogaro ordered the cancellation of the Mass “so as not to set a precedent.” The bishop said that he was taking action to help his people pray properly, since "to mumble in Latin serves no purpose."

Link: cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53562

How does that square with official Catholic teaching?

 

[Nohome]

And the Bishop’s rationale for banning the TLM:

How does that square with official Catholic teaching?

I’m sure asking people to speak clearly and understdably while praying is consistant with Catholic teaching. To mumble in any language serves no purpose.

Nohome

 

[childofmary1143]

You are wrong, read my last post.

Nohome

You are not an expert to interpret what the Pope means.

 

[Catholic29]

I’m sure asking people to speak clearly and understdably while praying is consistant with Catholic teaching. To mumble in any language serves no purpose.

Nohome

So in other words, the latest Moto Proprio and the one from 1988 serve no purpose in the Church today, other than to perhaps bring the SSPX and others of like mind back into the fold?

If I am reading you right, it would appear your presumption flies in the face of the spirit of the language in Summorum Pontificum, and the Pope’s accompanying letter to bishops.

 

[bones_IV]

I’m sure asking people to speak clearly and understdably while praying is consistant with Catholic teaching. To mumble in any language serves no purpose.

Nohome

You are no expert in liturgical norms so don’t pretend to be.

 

[Cranch]

A Bishop that forbids the Latin Mass isn’t being disobediant, he is using the authority granted to him as a Bishop. The prior instruction said priests could use the Latin Mass with permission, now that permission is implied unless they hear otherwise from their Ordinary. That is what happened in this case.

I don’t find this idea anywhere in Summorum Pontificum. As an introduction to the new rules for use of the missal of John XXIII, Article 1 states:The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents ‘Quattuor abhinc annis’ and ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ are substituted as follows…
I believe this clearly replaces any earlier requirements of episcopal permission. In fact the MP clearly states any priest has the right to say a TLM, and it says nothing about this right being contingent on his bishop’s permission. In fact the laity are instructed to make arrangements directly with their priest. If that is unproductive, only then does the bishop enter in; and if satisfaction is still not forthcoming, then recourse to Rome is provided for:Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 § 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”.
Article 5 § 1 also says the celebration of the TLM should be in harmony “with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392…” Here is that canon:**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.

Indeed, and in the Pope’s explanitory letter on “Summorum Pontificum” he said the following:

                In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese

The Pope says moderator, not dictator. The very next paragraph states:Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.
Obstruction of the celebration of the TLM by a bishop is, in my opinion, a violation of the spirit and possibly the letter of Summorum Pontificum.

 

[Nohome]

You are not an expert to interpret what the Pope means.

And you are?

 

[Nohome]

Obstruction of the celebration of the TLM by a bishop is, in my opinion, a violation of the spirit and possibly the letter of Summorum Pontificum.

Indeed, this is your opinion. Mine is quite different, though I suspect time will vindicate me. Unless the Pope takes action he basically endorses my interpretation.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

You are no expert in liturgical norms so don’t pretend to be.

That’s the best rebuttal you can write? Is anyone here an expert? Face it, the MP wasn’t quite what you wanted it to be.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

So in other words, the latest Moto Proprio and the one from 1988 serve no purpose in the Church today, other than to perhaps bring the SSPX and others of like mind back into the fold?

They do serve this purpose, but I think there is more to them than that. Primarily it is a shift to implied approval for the Latin Mass rather the need to seek approval. As the Pope says, it does not deminish the Bishop’s authority.

If I am reading you right, it would appear your presumption flies in the face of the spirit of the language in Summorum Pontificum, and the Pope’s accompanying letter to bishops.

Hardly, but it does fly in the face of a lot of wishful thinking on this list.

Nohome

 

[bones_IV]

That’s the best rebuttal you can write? Is anyone here an expert? Face it, the MP wasn’t quite what you wanted it to be.

Nohome

You are living in denial my friend. Did you read the MP? Or did you just hear what you wanted to hear. To mumble in Latin serves no purpose? This is a stupid thing to say on your part about the Mass in any language, and even stranger in direct defiance of a papal decree. Fact: Bishop Nogaro made a direct defiant move against the MP, but a grave insult to the piety of those in his diocese who, for whatever reasons, wish to worship using the extraordinary form of the rite, in accordance with the manifest will of the Pope. Think before you talk. Why do you feel the need to hijack this thread?

 

[Nohome]

You are living in denial my friend.

Why do you keep calling me your friend? Clearly you disagree with me and use sarcasim in a hateful way.

Did you read the MP?

I read the unofficial English translation. The accompaniying letter is already translated.

To mumble in Latin serves no purpose? This is a stupid thing to say on your part about the Mass in any language, and even stranger in direct defiance of a papal decree.

Uh, I didn’t say that, the Bishop did. You may call him stupid if you like.

Fact: Bishop Nogaro made a direct defiant move against the MP, but a grave insult to the piety of those in his diocese who, for whatever reasons, wish to worship using the extraordinary form of the rite, in accordance with the manifest will of the Pope.

Not fact, but definately your opinion.

Why do you feel the need to hijack this thread?

That, my friend, is your usual response when someone thumps you in a debate.

Nohome

 

[Walt_Oliver]

WARNING

The bickering needs to stop and stop NOW! Please return to discussing the topic of the thread. Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[Dauphin]

Clearly the bishop’s decision is in violation of the norms laid out in Summorum Pontificum. The bishop has no more right to forbid public celebrations in the extraordinary form than he has to forbid them in the ordinary form.

Imagine the outcry if a bishop suddenly exercised his supposed jurisdiction and banned the ordinary form of the Mass. Some people seem to be suggesting that this would be within his rights. Clearly, the idea is absurd. The Bishop may not to ban the Roman Rite, in either form.

 

[anamchara]

That’s the best rebuttal you can write? Is anyone here an expert? Face it, the MP wasn’t quite what you wanted it to be.

Nohome

I had a feeling the MP wasn’t going to end up being what people really wanted and that there would be major disappointment. I have now noticed this in the forums.

 

[Dauphin]

I had a feeling the MP wasn’t going to end up being what people really wanted and that there would be major disappointment. I have now noticed this in the forums.

Major disappointment? I don’t see that. I see a huge growth in visibility for the TLM and great prospects for the future.

 

[mdgspencer]

People are getting a bit upset. However, I wonder if someone would post a link to the Papal document allowing the use of the rite of 1962. Perhaps this will help settle the differences about what the Pope said and meant.
I wonder if this press report actually says what the bishop actually said. Sometimes the press gets it wrong. On the other hand simply appealing to the bishop’s authority is no conclusive statement, since the bishop’s authority has its limits. He could not tell his priests to alter the eucharistic prayer for example (not that I know of a bishop who has done this.)

 

[anamchara]

Major disappointment? I don’t see that. I see a huge growth in visibility for the TLM and great prospects for the future.

I lurk around in the traditional forum to read and I’ve noticed things like this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185073

Just about every time I’ve gone in there, people are upset about not getting what they thought they would get. I’m sure there is positive as well, but these have stood out for me.

I hope I didn’t just break a forum rule by linking that I believe there is a rule about carrying over on conversation from one thread to another. Maybe it’s ok since we won’t talk about it

 

[Cranch]

People are getting a bit upset. However, I wonder if someone would post a link to the Papal document allowing the use of the rite of 1962. Perhaps this will help settle the differences about what the Pope said and meant.

I posted a link to the Motu Proprio in post #26. Here it is again: Summorum Pontificum. And here is the accompanying letter sent by the Pope to the bishops: My dear Brother Bishops.

And here is question 5 from the U.S. Bishops’ 20 Questions on the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum:5. When may the extraordinary form be used in parishes?
In parishes where a group of the faithful are attached to the extraordinary form of the Mass, they may approach the pastor, who is to support their petition willingly. No permissions are required.

—found on page 7 of this PDF
of the Committee On The Liturgy Newsletter Vol. XLIII
​

 

[Scotty_PGH]

I had a feeling the MP wasn’t going to end up being what people really wanted and that there would be major disappointment. I have now noticed this in the forums.

You’re correct, and it’s such a shame to see. On the one hand, you have so-called traditionalists, who have been singing Te Deums and giving thanks without ceasing to the Holy Father for being so generous and thorough in issuing this decree. On the other hand, you have the rebellious liberals who have been doing everything in their power to brush under the rug or outright impede the celebration of the Extraordinary Form, despite the pope’s command to the contrary. It really illustrates exactly who is being faithful to the will of the Church, as governed by our Holy Father.

One can only hope that this latter group can overcome their disappointment and their fear and assume a more obedient posture moving forward. The expected statements forthcoming from the Ecclesia Del commission should accelerate this.