Parishioners billed $72,000 for TLM (not a joke)

[Auntie_M]

This is in response to universalindult, post #311

A very big Thank You goes out to Spiller with his post #313 and #317. Also Aragorn1 with his #314, and pnewton #315

thank you all for “coming to my rescue” I am terribly afraid the attitude of universalindult is not at all without pride and arrogance. I hope that he will realize this and go to confession very soon.
I don’t blame people such as universalindult, they are obviously just repeating the apologetics of “their sect”. I may be referring to the wrong thing here, but the “for many” and not “for all”,is one of the “problems” that are being “preached” to certain groups. That Jesus died for many, (cause that is what the Bible says), is throwing the rest of the Bible out and going all out for that one verse. Jesus died for all, not just “many”. What about Ex. 24:8 …the covenant which the Lord has made with YOU in accordance with all these words…(Who is this YOU, does that mean he made a covenant with ONLY ONE PERSON! That’s is exactly what it says in the Bible… Also, 1st Corrinthians 11:25…cup of new covenant, As often as YOU drinkit…There again, is this cup only for ONE person…the YOU as the Bible says. And then there is Lev. 16:15-16 …blood atonement for sinful Israelites…Are we to believe that the blood will ONLY atone for the Israelites? Yet this is what is being taught to people like universalindult along with other wrongs. The Bible also says that in the last days, false Christ will arise and deceive even the elect.
Universalindult, my prayers are with you.

 

[JReducation]

The local ordinary has even less control over a private Mass then he does the Mass you are speaking of that is celebrated on-campus.

In fact he’s powerless to intervene with regard to a private Mass. If it’s on of his own priests he could ask the priest to stop and hopefully the priest would be obedient of course and cease.

BUT I can just imagine how fast the Holy See would react IF there was demand for the EF and it was not being met and that he told a priest to stop celebrating a private Mass because it was the EF. That would truly become a white-hot issue…

I’m fairly certain there is far more involved than what is actually being reported here…

If I may stick my two cents in here, I’m wondering if the mass was stopped becasue of the form or because it was private.

Canon law and tradition do not allow for private masses. Mass must be open to the people, even if it is just one more person besides the priest.

Only religious houses are allowed to exclude others from attending mass. But that’s not considered a private mass.

On the college issue, it all depends on who runs the college. If it is run by an exempt religious order, the bishop has no jurisdiction. The Major Superior of the Order has all the jurisdiction.

Major superiors of orders of pontifical right are ordinaries. Their priests fall under their jurisdiction except if they are working for the bishop. This was already challenged in ecclesiastical tribunals and lost at Georgetown University and Franciscan University. The tribunal found that Canon Law only gives the bishop the authority to allow the college or university to be established in his diocese. Once the college or university is established, they receive a charter from the Congregation on Education. The bishop cannot take that away from them. As to disciplinary matters, the bishop can only complain to the Major Superior and to the Congregation for Religious.

But my guess is that the problem is a technical one, not a matter of form. If a priest within a diocese, religious or secular celebrates a private mass, what does that mean? If it is exclusively for a certain group, then that’s not allowed, except in a religious house.

Just wondering.

JR

 

[Spiller]

Canon law and tradition do not allow for private masses. Mass must be open to the people, even if it is just one more person besides the priest.

No.

A Mass must not be open to the general public. For years the tridentiners (a Fr… McLucas) would come to town and celebrate an EF in the local Marriott ballroom or .

The Mass was NOT open to the public – it was by invite only and there was nothing the local ordinary could do about it.

 

[Phemie]

If I may stick my two cents in here, I’m wondering if the mass was stopped becasue of the form or because it was private.

Canon law and tradition do not allow for private masses. Mass must be open to the people, even if it is just one more person besides the priest.
JR

The Motu Proprio says that ANY priest may celebrate a “Mass without the people” in the EF on any day except during the Triduum and that they do not need the permission of their Ordinary. If they are celebrating a Mass without the people anyone who requests it of his/her own free will may attend. Why would a bishop forbid something when the Pope has said the priests don’t need permission to celebrate?

 

[JReducation]

The Motu Proprio says that ANY priest may celebrate a “Mass without the people” in the EF on any day except during the Triduum and that they do not need the permission of their Ordinary. If they are celebrating a Mass without the people anyone who requests it of his/her own free will may attend. Why would a bishop forbid something when the Pope has said the priests don’t need permission to celebrate?

I was referring to the use of the term “private”.

Can. 906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.

This canon has not been abrogated.

That’s why I was wondering about the use of ther term “private”.

Can. 923 The Christian faithful can participate in the eucharistic sacrifice and receive holy communion in any Catholic rite.

It is strange that a priest could celebrate mass by invitation only. The faithful can attend any mass in any Catholic rite.

This has been reserved only for religious houses.

JR

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I was referring to the use of the term “private”.

Can. 906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.

This canon has not been abrogated.

That’s why I was wondering about the use of ther term “private”.

Can. 923 The Christian faithful can participate in the eucharistic sacrifice and receive holy communion in any Catholic rite.

It is strange that a priest could celebrate mass by invitation only. The faithful can attend any mass in any Catholic rite.

This has been reserved only for religious houses.

JR

Per the motu proprio:

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

 

[Claudius]

I would like to ask the people here who are in favor of the Diocese’s request to answer me a simple question:

How many people must attend an EF Mass in order to comply with the Pope’s mandate?

I hate to admit it but the number of people may not be so important as the amount of money. Suppose one really rich family (?Mel Gibson?) wanted to have the EF in his parish and was willing to put up the money, however much was needed to make it happen. Guess what, It would happen. Now suppose there is a moderate or even large group of people but they are very poor and can not contribute finacially to the parish in any significant amount. These poeple will have no say in the kind of Rite celebrated by the priest, they will have to go along with whichever rite the local pastor chooses.

Yes, I know what this sounds like, rich people getting what they want and poor people being ignored. On the other hand, if we look at the wording of the Popes letter, the pastor of a parish could decide on his own without any finacial encentive to start to celebrate the EF at some or all of the Masses at his parish. He could even choose to have another priest under his charge or not come into the parish and say the EF free of charge if he wanted. We need to have enough people in a parish asking for the EF that the pastor things it wise to offer it as part of the normal workings of the parish.

We need to have Bishops that will not punish priest for saying one or more EF per week. If we can convice the pastor or the Bishop that people who want the EF are not strange boarder schismatic Catholics but just down to earth everyday Catholics that are 100% loyal to the Church then we could see a lot more EF Masses opening up.

Another thing to think about is that fact that any priest can say the EF privatley if they want to. If they choose to do that they can let people in the back door as it were and there might not be any need to pay anybody anything.

The big thing to remember here is that finacially supporting the Church is a requirment of every Catholic. If the Church is offering the EF and we attend, then it is our duty to support it with our earnings. If we have no realy monetary earnings, then we must support the Church in any way we can.

I can see how people may not like the idea of money being brought up from the very start but it is not unreasonable for the Church to ask for the money at all.

 

[jc-servant]

A problem with just adding a TLM at a parish in many places is that even the priests who have celebrated it in the past are busy with many other masses per week. My pastor said that he is one of the few in our diocese who could probably do it right now based on his experience. However, we have such a huge parish that needs so many Sunday masses, it would not be possible to fit another one in for him.

It would mean we would need to have enough people (over 1000) who wanted TLM to replace the NO mass at a current time. I don’t see that happening at all. Our church holds about a little over 1200 seats. We are pretty well packed into the aisles with standing room for all Sunday masses. I could see a better solution if enough people asked for TLM in an additional location (from where they can go now) would be to send a sub to celebrate NO at our parish for one mass and let our priest go to another location for the TLM.

I think the diocese in the original post had a good idea that people are not appreciating yet.

 

[pnewton]

It would mean we would need to have enough people (over 1000) who wanted TLM to replace the NO mass at a current time. I don’t see that happening at all. Our church holds about a little over 1200 seats. .

This is one reason why putting a number to how many are needed for a TLM is difficult. In this situation the number would need to be large for a Sunday Mass. In my parish 100 might ber enough. Any extra Mass just wouldn’t be possible. We already have five.

 

[thecoach]

Has Fr. Z gotten a hold of this yet? He’s sure to incensed! (no pun intended).

In all seriously, this is disheartening and disgusting. Another example of traditional catholics being treated as second-class Christians. Sometimes I wish that a certain group of Bishops would be systematically struck but lightning, but then common sense and charity kick in. I then realize that this is clearly a cross the Lord has given to some of his most devout followers to see if their charity is as deep as it ought to be, and ensure that we (traditionalists) do not follow the example of the SSPX and give up on charity and obedience regarding the magisterium.

That said, I hope that this Diocese recieves thousands of charitable letters begging that these unjust actions be recanted.

The rest of us can pray for these poor souls who are only asking for Mass and recieve a huge bill for it.

Or another example of pure greed. For those who have blind obedience to their bishops, how would you handle this one?

 

[ghost8108]

I would love to see the bill our Lord Jesus Christ gives these hypocritic and hateful Clergy to enter the gates of Heaven?:ehh:

 

[universalindult]

A problem with just adding a TLM at a parish in many places is that even the priests who have celebrated it in the past are busy with many other masses per week. My pastor said that he is one of the few in our diocese who could probably do it right now based on his experience. However, we have such a huge parish that needs so many Sunday masses, it would not be possible to fit another one in for him.

This is a false dilemma. One need not add a mass, but simply replace one scheduled Novus Ordo mass with a TLM.

 

[pnewton]

This is a false dilemma. One need not add a mass, but simply replace one scheduled Novus Ordo mass with a TLM.

But what would be the point in that if there wasn’t an interest in the TLM? If the other Masses were crowded, then they would be even more crowded. It is not a simple solution. If the overcrowding caused families to attend elsewhere, then the economic downside would have to be weighed in.

 

[LRThunder]

But what would be the point in that if there wasn’t an interest in the TLM? If the other Masses were crowded, then they would be even more crowded. It is not a simple solution. If the overcrowding caused families to attend elsewhere, then the economic downside would have to be weighed in.

But here’s the problem: why should we be concerned now about the interest in a TLM replacing another Mass (if a parish has more than one Sunday Mass every week) when such considerations were not given around 1969-1970 when the current Mass came about?

 

[JReducation]

Per the motu proprio:

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

This the same as I was questioning above about “private” mass.

The only exception that I know to both the Motu Proprio and the Canons are religious houses, because they are not public oratories or parishes.

It has always been accepted by the Church that mass celebrated in a religious house or a chapel or oratory attached to a religious house is not a parish and is under the jurisdiction of the Major Religious Superior.

But when a priest, whether secular or religious, celebrates mass in a public place, there is no such thing as “private”.

Even a mass celebrated in a religious house or chapel, is not private. The mass is always celebrated in union with the Church. What is private is the place. Therefore, it’s not a case where the mass is off-limits, but that the place is off-limits to the laity.

Usually convent chapels are off limits to the laity, because they tend to be built inside the convent. Many religious houses have a chapel that is attached, but not within the enclosure.

Anyway, to get back on track. I don’t understand the “private” mass point.

JR

 

[pnewton]

But here’s the problem: why should we be concerned now about the interest in a TLM replacing another Mass (if a parish has more than one Sunday Mass every week) when such considerations were not given around 1969-1970 when the current Mass came about?

Everyone so far that has made that comparison resents the way the earlier change happened. So if that was a bad way to do it, why repeat the tactic? Simple revenge?

 

[LRThunder]

Everyone so far that has made that comparison resents the way the earlier change happened. So if that was a bad way to do it, why repeat the tactic? Simple revenge?

Of course not. But, on the other hand, the Church isn’t a democracy and never will be.

 

[jc-servant]

But here’s the problem: why should we be concerned now about the interest in a TLM replacing another Mass (if a parish has more than one Sunday Mass every week) when such considerations were not given around 1969-1970 when the current Mass came about?

Not very charitable. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m glad that my pastor has more sense of pastoral concern for all of his people.

 

[LRThunder]

Not very charitable. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m glad that my pastor has more sense of pastoral concern for all of his people.

I apologize, but my point still stands. When the current Mass came about, there wasn’t as much concern for those who liked the EF Mass. There weren’t norms that were established for the current Mass to be celebrated like there were for the extraordinary form.

If His Holiness saw fit to loosen up the restrictions on the Extraordinary Form, then all Catholics should accept that. If a future pope decides to place restrictions on the current Mass or reinstate restrictions on the Extraordinary Form, then we should accept that. The Church isn’t a democracy.

 

[JReducation]

We had a request for the EF in our parish. It was complicated. The Brothers discussed it and the Superior approved it, but then he withdrew the approval becaused it cause some contention among the friars.

He said that he needed to protect the unity of the religious community above all things. But he did give the pastor permission to find a secular priest or another religious priest who wanted to celebrate it.

Everyone is happy, because it was a good compromise. We’re fortunate, because those who love the EF in our parish also love the religious order and its spirit. They don’t want to compromise that.

It was made clear to the laity, that if this became a point of contention in the community, that the community would have to surrender the parish to the Bishop and that the Bishop would have to find someone to staff it.

Our parishioners who want the EF are not militant. They are very holy people without ressentment. They also love the tradition that the Brothers bring to the parish.

They were happy to hear that the Superior had given the pastor permission to find someone who knew how to celebrate it and encouraged the pastor to speak to the Bishop and see if the Bishop has anyone who can do it.

People feel that they are being heard. At the same time, they have great respect for the value of community and the importance of unity in the community. Before we had religious in our parish, it was very arid. Now it’s packed every Sunday and there are many beautiful ministries taking place there in which the laity is very involved.

JR