Italian bishop forbids Latin Mass despite motu proprio

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mikee said:
But as a priest is given the option to celebrate Mass in the vernacular, Summorum Pontificum has now given priests the option to celebrate Mass in the extraordinary or ordinary form (at the very least within private Masses).

And yes, I also think the Bishop’s comments were offensive, and whatever his reasons for his derisive words are, they are clearly in conflict with the Holy Father’s intent and vision for issuing the Motu Proprio.
Click to expand...
Yes. How would Nohome like it if someone called doing the Mass in english “mumbling”? I would be offended as well. It seems that Nohome is showing a double standard toward languages.
 
bones_IV said:
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?
Click to expand...
To argue with NOHOME makes no sense. He has stated publicly he is a "former"catholic. So no matter what is said there will be some sort of argument with him/her.
 
KathleenElsie said:
To argue with NOHOME makes no sense. He has stated publicly he is a "former"catholic. So no matter what is said there will be some sort of argument with him/her.
Click to expand...
If he’s a former Catholic then why exactly is he posting here for?
 
NOTICE:

I have pruned this thread of off topic and uncharitable posts. Please remember that this is a Catholic board and post accordingly. Thank you for your cooperation.
 
bones_IV said:
Yes. How would Nohome like it if someone called doing the Mass in english “mumbling”? I would be offended as well. It seems that Nohome is showing a double standard toward languages.
Click to expand...
Nohome doesn’t worry about trite issues like which language is used. I did witness a priest who mumbled English and the only thing that bothered me was that I couldn’t understand him.

My first language is English, my second is Japanese. If you prefer a Latin Mass, knock yourself out. Why not Greek? Wasn’t that the language of the first 300 years of the Church? How about Arameic? Was that not the tounge of Jesus?

Back on topic, I remain convinced that the Bishop worked within his authority to forbid his priest from using the Latin Mass.

Nohome
 
Nohome said:
We will see as actions speak louder than words. If the Pope does nothing about the actions of this Bishop it will become abundantly clear that he acted within his authority.

Nohome
Click to expand...
Unless this “Bishop” has good reason for not allowing the latin mass, let’s say he doesn’t have a priest in his diocese that even knows what he his doing well then it would be a good thing for the Bishop not to allow the latin mass. If he is refusing to do what the Pope ask out of a liberal, spiritual lazy, rebellious mind set then he needs to be delt with, and quickly. I hope that isn’t the case because then he would be no good for any one especially Catholics or the poor priest under him. If you don’t want to practice the “Catholic Faith” then leave because it isn’t going to Change because one person just doesn’t like the latin mass. Why would you want to undo the work of the Holy Spirit for over 2000 years for the Vatican II mass? For someone to forbid this mass has to be truly ignorant of the graces this mass gives. Good luck on your search.
 
Nohome said:
This isn’t a question about the details of how a Mass is said, it is a matter of which Mass is said.
Click to expand...
So you would then believe that a bishop is within his rights to forbid the use of the Mass of Pope Paul VI.
 
Nohome said:
Nohome doesn’t worry about trite issues like which language is used.
Click to expand...
It’s not merely about language. The Novus Ordo can be said in Latin. The issue is about forbiding the use of the extraordinary rite, which is not a trite issue
Back on topic, I remain convinced that the Bishop worked within his authority to forbid his priest from using the Latin Mass.
Click to expand...
Nope - the Bishop overstepped his authority.
 
fightingroman said:
Unless this “Bishop” has good reason for not allowing the latin mass, let’s say he doesn’t have a priest in his diocese that even knows what he his doing well then it would be a good thing for the Bishop not to allow the latin mass.
Click to expand...
Now we are getting somewhere, you at least acknowledge that the Bishop has the authority to forbid the Tridentine Mass!
If he is refusing to do what the Pope ask out of a liberal, spiritual lazy, rebellious mind set then he needs to be delt with, and quickly.
Click to expand...
That’s Rome’s business, not mine.
If you don’t want to practice the “Catholic Faith” then leave because it isn’t going to Change because one person just doesn’t like the latin mass.
Click to expand...
I did leave, four years ago, but not because of the Latin Mass.
Why would you want to undo the work of the Holy Spirit for over 2000 years for the Vatican II mass?
Click to expand...
The Latin Mass is not 2000 years old.

Nohome
 
irenaeus1 said:
So you would then believe that a bishop is within his rights to forbid the use of the Mass of Pope Paul VI.
Click to expand...
If Novus Ordo were the extraordinary and the Tridentine were the ordinary, I’d say yes.

Nohome
 
Nohome said:
Nohome doesn’t worry about trite issues like which language is used. I did witness a priest who mumbled English and the only thing that bothered me was that I couldn’t understand him.

My first language is English, my second is Japanese. If you prefer a Latin Mass, knock yourself out. Why not Greek? Wasn’t that the language of the first 300 years of the Church? How about Arameic? Was that not the tounge of Jesus?

Back on topic, I remain convinced that the Bishop worked within his authority to forbid his priest from using the Latin Mass.

Nohome
Click to expand...
According to Cardinal Hoyos, you are wrong

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.”
Code: 
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.

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."
 
A Latin rite priest is ordained to celebrate the Latin rite. With the Pope’s MP any Latin rite priest can celebrate the liturgy in both forms without the permission from his ordinary. The bishop cannot forbid the TLM any more than he could forbid the Novus Ordo. Many people are restricting the Holy Father’s MP, which granted Latin Rite Priests to celebrate all the sacraments without permission as well as the TLM.
 
Hegesippus said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Not needing permission (implied consent) is different than a Bishops order (expressly forbid)
Hegesippus said:
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.”
Click to expand...
“Should” is different from “must”. The Cardinal reaffirmed the authority of the Bishops.

Nohome
 
Nohome said:
Not needing permission (implied consent) is different than a Bishops order (expressly forbid)

“Should” is different from “must”. The Cardinal reaffirmed the authority of the Bishops.

Nohome
Click to expand...
I think you must really read into the document to get that interpretation.
  1. The pope issues the MP allowing all priests without permission from their ordinary to celebrate sacraments and the TLM of the extraordinary from.
  2. Your interpretation is that a priest does not need permission, but can be explicitly prohibited from celebrating the extraordinary form. (your understanding)
If 2 is the case, what was the purpose of the MP? if it is the case, than Pope Benedict’s MP is really no different than JPII’ s MP. However, it was because of the bishops reluctance to “open their hearts” that Pope Benedict did what he did. IF they would have more generously responded to JP II’s MP we may not of had Pope Benedict’s MP.

The bishop’s authority over the liturgy in his diocese is limited. In fact he is the servant of the liturgy and is supposed to make sure of its proper implementation esp when directives come from the Holy See. The bishop for instance, cannot forbid the ordinary form of the liturgy (nor the extraordinary form), nor can he say, when the new sacramentary comes in 08, that his diocese can only use the older one. By forbidding the extraordinary form, he is reaching beyond his authority because the pope gave explicit permission for all priests to celebrate the TLM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top