Italian bishop forbids Latin Mass despite motu proprio

[yugnok]

Nohome;2756575:

Not needing permission (implied consent) is different than a Bishops order (expressly forbid)"

Pope gives permission, local ordinary takes it away

Eventually, the Bishop’s decision will be reversed by the Holy See.

The Bishop’s authority regarding regulating the liturgy in his diocese is not absolute. He can’t just go around forbidding things that the Holy See allows to be done “without permission”.

His “mumbling in latin” comments are just reprehensible and tyrannical. The clear intention of SP was to reach out to those catholics who are more at home with the old liturgy (which is a perfectly legitimate liturgy). Basically, the bishop is saying “your spirituality is worthless. You will pray the way I want you to pray.”

 

[Nohome]

I think you must really read into the document to get that interpretation.

Every word of it, plus the accompanying letter.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

yugnok:

Eventually, the Bishop’s decision will be reversed by the Holy See.

Highly unlikely

yugnok:

The Bishop’s authority regarding regulating the liturgy in his diocese is not absolute. He can’t just go around forbidding things that the Holy See allows to be done “without permission”.

But it is greater than you care to believe. He may have legitimate reasons for the ban.

yugnok:

His “mumbling in latin” comments are just reprehensible and tyrannical.

If those are his words, they are indeed offensive. Remember, we are talking about a news report, they have been known to get thier facts crossed.

yugnok:

Basically, the bishop is saying “your spirituality is worthless. You will pray the way I want you to pray.”

That is your spin. He might be saying he has a hard time covering all the Masses as it is.

Nohome

 

[childofmary1143]

But it is greater than you care to believe. He may have legitimate reasons for the ban.

Nohome

You are wrong. The Bishop can never overrule the Pope. Your posts saying that he can ban it suggest that somehow the Bishop is above the Pope.

 

[Nohome]

You are wrong. The Bishop can never overrule the Pope. Your posts saying that he can ban it suggest that somehow the Bishop is above the Pope.

Does the Pope know the Priests of this Diocese? Does he know their training? Does he know how many Masses they must say every week? Does he know how many people (if any) in the Diocese have requested the Latin Mass?

There is a reason the Pope places so much authority upon the Bishops. The Pope reaffirmed this authority in his letter. The Bishop is acting within his authority.

Nohome

 

[childofmary1143]

Does the Pope know the Priests of this Diocese? Does he know their training? Does he know how many Masses they must say every week? Does he know how many people (if any) in the Diocese have requested the Latin Mass?

There is a reason the Pope places so much authority upon the Bishops. The Pope reaffirmed this authority in his letter. The Bishop is acting within his authority.

Nohome

I think you better re-read the article. The Bishop isn’t saying that Priests who have no training in the TLM can’t say it (within his mandate) but he is saying that the TLM is forbidden outright and his reasons are incorrect. Given the apparent facts, the Bishop is acting ultra vires. Case closed, move on.

 

[irenaeus1]

Now we are getting somewhere, you at least acknowledge that the Bishop has the authority to forbid the Tridentine Mass!

We are? There are a number of bishops who have said they will need to train priests in order to properly offer the Mass under the extraordinary rite. This is a far cry from a bishop forbidding the extraordinary rite and being critical of it as indicated by the “mumbling in Latin” remark made by this particular bishop that you are defending.

It is clear from JPII that he allowed the Tridentine Mass to be used with permission of the bishop. The MP issued under B16 now allows the use of the Tridentine Mass (1962 Missal specifically) without the express permission of the bishop. If the bishop could still forbid it under the auspices of the MP, what was the purpose of the MP, since in essence, this would be the same permission that already existed?

And as a person who has left the Catholic Church, why do you care?

 

[Hegesippus]

Does the Pope know the Priests of this Diocese? Does he know their training? Does he know how many Masses they must say every week? Does he know how many people (if any) in the Diocese have requested the Latin Mass?

There is a reason the Pope places so much authority upon the Bishops. The Pope reaffirmed this authority in his letter. The Bishop is acting within his authority.

Nohome

That’s exactly why the pope is not making it mandatory to celebrate the TLM, but granting permission for those who want to. It does not make sense to band the TLM if people want it, the pastor is willing to celebrate it, why not nourish the people’s spirituality?

 

[KathleenElsie]

We are? There are a number of bishops who have said they will need to train priests in order to properly offer the Mass under the extraordinary rite. This is a far cry from a bishop forbidding the extraordinary rite and being critical of it as indicated by the “mumbling in Latin” remark made by this particular bishop that you are defending.

It is clear from JPII that he allowed the Tridentine Mass to be used with permission of the bishop. The MP issued under B16 now allows the use of the Tridentine Mass (1962 Missal specifically) without the express permission of the bishop. If the bishop could still forbid it under the auspices of the MP, what was the purpose of the MP, since in essence, this would be the same permission that already existed?

And as a person who has left the Catholic Church, why do you care?

 

[Nohome]

I think you better re-read the article. The Bishop isn’t saying that Priests who have no training in the TLM can’t say it (within his mandate) but he is saying that the TLM is forbidden outright and his reasons are incorrect. Given the apparent facts, the Bishop is acting ultra vires. Case closed, move on.

Who made you the Pope’s referee? The Pope reaffirmed the authority of the Bishops, plain and simple.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

We are? There are a number of bishops who have said they will need to train priests in order to properly offer the Mass under the extraordinary rite. This is a far cry from a bishop forbidding the extraordinary rite and being critical of it as indicated by the “mumbling in Latin” remark made by this particular bishop that you are defending.

I think the mumbling remark is a statement about the ability of his priests to say the TLM.

It is clear from JPII that he allowed the Tridentine Mass to be used with permission of the bishop. The MP issued under B16 now allows the use of the Tridentine Mass (1962 Missal specifically) without the express permission of the bishop. If the bishop could still forbid it under the auspices of the MP, what was the purpose of the MP, since in essence, this would be the same permission that already existed?

It is different because they are granted (name removed by moderator)lied consent instead of seeking expressed consent.

And as a person who has left the Catholic Church, why do you care?

I don’t care in that it doesn’t affect me, but I remain interested in the church.

Nohome

 

[childofmary1143]

Who made you the Pope’s referee? The Pope reaffirmed the authority of the Bishops, plain and simple.

Nohome

The authority of the Bishop was never abrogated by any Pope that I can recall and why you think we are insinuating that is odd. The Holy Father (who outranks and is SUPERIOR) to any Bishop, has granted permission to every Priest to say the TLM without the Bishop’s permission (as had been previously the case). A Bishop can’t ban the TLM outright. Please stop saying that the Bishop can because he can’t and you are wrong.

 

[Nohome]

A Bishop can’t ban the TLM outright. Please stop saying that the Bishop can because he can’t and you are wrong.

What do you mean they can’t, so far at least one HAS banned the TLM outright. Can’t? He did!

If you wish to debate this, please, by all means bring on the facts. You may call me wrong, but the facts remain the same. I read the documents myself.

Nohome

 

[geezerbob]

This argument is going round and round and getting nowhere. Why don’t you guys cool it and let’s wait and see if the Vatican does anything about this bishop?

 

[Scotty_PGH]

This argument is going round and round and getting nowhere. Why don’t you guys cool it and let’s wait and see if the Vatican does anything about this bishop?

This is good advice.

 

[KathleenElsie]

This argument is going round and round and getting nowhere. Why don’t you guys cool it and let’s wait and see if the Vatican does anything about this bishop?

Good advice. This is getting way out of hand.

 

[Nohome]

This argument is going round and round and getting nowhere. Why don’t you guys cool it and let’s wait and see if the Vatican does anything about this bishop?

Well, back in post #19 I said:

Tell you what, let’s defer debate for a month or so and see what the Pope has to say about the actions of this Bishop.

Sage advice if you ask me, but nobody would listen.

Nohome

 

[KathleenElsie]

Sage advice if you ask me, but nobody would listen.

Nohome

But people must take their own advice for others to follow suit.

 

[Nohome]

But people must take their own advice for others to follow suit.

I am within my right to provide rebuttle to any challenge to my comments. That, afterall is what makes debate.

Nohome

 

[Cobbfmly]

I have read through the Motu Proprio a few times. What I find interesting about the MP is that authority flows upward rather than downward. The decission to celebrate or not to celebrate the extrodinary form falls to individual priest for masses without the people and to pastors/Superiors Major for parish/community celebrations.

In the case of parishes, if the pastor does not provide for the extrodinary form (assuming there is a stable group that adheres to the form), the request may be taken to the Bishop. If the Bishop does not provide for the extrodinary form, the request may be taken to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”. Also, if the Bishop wants to to provide the extrodinary form but runs into difficulties, he can request assistance from the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

No where in the MP does it say that the extrodinary form must be provided. Everything is in the form of may, should and strongly requested.

Even the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” is not required to force a Bishop or priest to make the extrodinary form available. However, if they tell a priest or Bishop that they must make it available, it is done with the authority of the Holy See.

It will be interesting to see how the MP shakes out over the next 5 - 10 yrs. I suspect that my parish will not be affected by it as an FSSP priest recently held TLM at our parish and the turnout was very small for the size of our parish (max 150 people out of 9,000+ parishoners). I suspect that most of the people in our city that adhere to the extrodinary form drive 25 miles to the FSSP parish and stopped being involved in the parish year ago.