Italian bishop forbids Latin Mass despite motu proprio

[Nohome]

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.

I did not make this observation, but I suspect this would make the MP rather unique among church documents.

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.

Yes, that was my observation too. I can only speak for what is written in the English translation, but even a word search in Latin did not reveal what I would understand to be “must”.

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.

Yes, I believe you are correct. In addition, the Pope could correct a ruling of the PC if he doesn’t approve of the outcome. This, of course, would eliminate any ambiguity in the language of the MP.

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.

I think your 5 - 10 year timeline is more realistic than the “few months” I mentioned earlier. That is just the way the church operates.

There was no mention of the MP in our local Parish, so I asked. I was told there have been no requests. I find this suprising because I have seen people holding the 1962 missal during Mass. It may be the same situation you describe, but the TLM was canceled in the nearest large city due to lack of interest. One would have to travel 3 hours from where I live to attend a regularly scheduled TLM.

Nohome

 

[paladinan]

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.

That’s what I was going to mention. On this thread, some of the following possibilities have gotten a bit blurred, re: the Traditional Latin Mass [TLM] as found in the Missal of 1962:

1. The TLM is obligatory for all priests in the diocese.
2. The TLM is allowed for all priests in the diocese, at their discretion.
3. The TLM is forbidden to all priests in the diocese.

(There are other possibilities, certainly, but you get the idea.)

The Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum [SP], certainly doesn’t make the TLM obligatory for all priests, nor does it insist that priests unable to celebrate the Mass using 1962 Missal must do so, regardless of their inability (the MP insists that priests need to be “idoneus”–to have at least enough familiarity with the Latin and the rubrics to pronounce the words correctly, and to obey the rubrics correctly).

Moreover, it may be arguable that the Bishop was within his rights to cancel that particular Mass (on Sep. 15, at the Shrine of St. Anne), if the Mass were a “public” Mass (which is by no means certain).

But Bishop Nogaro went very much farther than that: he stopped the TLM so as “not to set a precedent” (which is nonsense, since the TLM was never abrogated–there’s already well over 400 years of precedent, even with the Tridentine Mass alone…); that comment, along with the infamous “mumbling in Latin serving no purpose” comment, makes it quite clear that the TLM is forbidden in principle and in general for the entire diocese. That’s a horse (or chasuble?) of a different color; in essence, the Bishop is attempting to enact “option #3” above, which is beyond his authority altogether. If any pastor satisfies the requirements of SP (i.e. idoneus re: Latin and rubrics, has been approached by a group of the faithful who request the TLM and/or wishes to celebrate the TLM privately with any of the faithful who choose to attend of their own free will, etc.), then the MP clearly states that the priest has the freedom to do so, without any need of special permission.

A comment was made about “lack of permission being different from a direct refusal”; that simply doesn’t apply, if the given priest is not canonically impeded. If the bishop were to have said, “I’ve taken a survey of the entire diocese, and no priests are willing to celebrate Mass using the 1962 Missal; therefore, there will be no TLM’s in my diocese!”, that would be comprehensible (though I wouldn’t believe him for an instant); but do note that Msgr. Gionta was ready and prepared to celebrate the TLM, which blows that “loophole” out of the water.

Finally, the MP, along with the still-enduring (so far as I understand!) documents of Vatican II, insist that seminarians be trained in Latin! (How’s that for an ignored requirement?) If none of Bishop Nogaro’s priests are idoneus in Latin, then he’s just declared himself to be remiss in his duties–and remains obligated to remedy that state of affairs with all speed.

In Christ,
Brian

P.S. I can dig up the references to Vatican II, etc, later, if anyone likes–I’m a bit limited in time, at the moment.

 

[Cranch]

That’s what I was going to mention. On this thread, some of the following possibilities have gotten a bit blurred, re: the Traditional Latin Mass [TLM] as found in the Missal of 1962:

1. The TLM is obligatory for all priests in the diocese.
2. The TLM is allowed for all priests in the diocese, at their discretion.
3. The TLM is forbidden to all priests in the diocese.

(There are other possibilities, certainly, but you get the idea.)

The Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum [SP], certainly doesn’t make the TLM obligatory for all priests, nor does it insist that priests unable to celebrate the Mass using 1962 Missal must do so, regardless of their inability (the MP insists that priests need to be “idoneus”–to have at least enough familiarity with the Latin and the rubrics to pronounce the words correctly, and to obey the rubrics correctly).

Moreover, it may be arguable that the Bishop was within his rights to cancel that particular Mass (on Sep. 15, at the Shrine of St. Anne), if the Mass were a “public” Mass (which is by no means certain).

But Bishop Nogaro went very much farther than that: he stopped the TLM so as “not to set a precedent” (which is nonsense, since the TLM was never abrogated–there’s already well over 400 years of precedent, even with the Tridentine Mass alone…); that comment, along with the infamous “mumbling in Latin serving no purpose” comment, makes it quite clear that the TLM is forbidden in principle and in general for the entire diocese. That’s a horse (or chasuble?) of a different color; in essence, the Bishop is attempting to enact “option #3” above, which is beyond his authority altogether. If any pastor satisfies the requirements of SP (i.e. idoneus re: Latin and rubrics, has been approached by a group of the faithful who request the TLM and/or wishes to celebrate the TLM privately with any of the faithful who choose to attend of their own free will, etc.), then the MP clearly states that the priest has the freedom to do so, without any need of special permission.

A comment was made about “lack of permission being different from a direct refusal”; that simply doesn’t apply, if the given priest is not canonically impeded. If the bishop were to have said, “I’ve taken a survey of the entire diocese, and no priests are willing to celebrate Mass using the 1962 Missal; therefore, there will be no TLM’s in my diocese!”, that would be comprehensible (though I wouldn’t believe him for an instant); but do note that Msgr. Gionta was ready and prepared to celebrate the TLM, which blows that “loophole” out of the water.

Finally, the MP, along with the still-enduring (so far as I understand!) documents of Vatican II, insist that seminarians be trained in Latin! (How’s that for an ignored requirement?) If none of Bishop Nogaro’s priests are idoneus in Latin, then he’s just declared himself to be remiss in his duties–and remains obligated to remedy that state of affairs with all speed.

In Christ,
Brian

P.S. I can dig up the references to Vatican II, etc, later, if anyone likes–I’m a bit limited in time, at the moment.

paladinan - Looking at your CAF stats, you apparently don’t say much, but when you do (if this post is any indication) it is worth reading!

 

[paladinan]

paladinan - Looking at your CAF stats, you apparently don’t say much, but when you do (if this post is any indication) it is worth reading!

You can consider this a contrast to my public life, where–when I get warmed up–I can chatter for hours, with the best of them! (Ask my wife! )

Now, if only I could reply to these posts with Carthusian hand symbols, I could do something about my verbosity…

In Christ,
Brian

 

[fightingroman]

This is just awful! What do we do with bishops who are resisting the Moto Proprio?

From CWNews

Invite them all to the Vatican, Celebrate the Latin Mass as Grand and ornate as it should be, then publicly one by one call the Bishops forward and defrock them in front of the entire Church.

 

[fightingroman]

Fix, are you sure about that? Can you site where it states this?

I think this is a case of no one has really read through the whole MP yet. Perhaps the same thing is stated for the MP…“if the bishops allow them” I really do wonder now.

There can not be female servers in the Latin Mass. It is not allowed in it’s Rubrics.

 

[fightingroman]

actually it shouldn’t be allowed at all. The whole purpose for male only servers is to encourage vocations to the priest hood, and since there will never be female priest, thank God, it is totally retarded for mother’s to push their daughters on the alter. Besides they look totally ridiculous. What are people not thinking these days?