Pope Overrides Objections

  • Thread starter Thread starter BobP123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aramis said:
Sorry, grabbed wrong link for the top.

I retain hope that the whole Tridentine issue is resolved by separate Sui Iuris Church status, as there is a valid call for it, but it’s too divisive to have both in the same Ritual Church (of which there are currently 22 in the Catholic Church…) …one more would not be untoward, and would guarantee the preservation of the TLM, at least until the next general council.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t need to be in the same Church. The TLM can be said in gymnasiums, halls, homes, hotel rooms, and even outdoors. Perhaps the M.P. will address the issue where conflicts with the NO are possible. The last thing the Church needs is more divisiveness.
 
BobP123 said:
It doesn’t need to be in the same Church. The TLM can be said in gymnasiums, halls, homes, hotel rooms, and even outdoors. Perhaps the M.P. will address the issue where conflicts with the NO are possible. The last thing the Church needs is more divisiveness.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the meaning of ritual church. It is no reference at all to the buildings involved.

The Ruthenians are a Ritual Church. As are the Ukranian Catholics, the Maronites, the Romans, The Melkites, the Greek Catholics, the Italo-Albanian Catholics. Each is a separate ritual church, with separate hierarchy below the pope. All are fully catholic, but are allowed their own theology, their own liturgy, their own expression of the Catholic Dogma, their own bishops and priests.

I feel the Tridentine belongs in the church, just not sharing the same priests, bishops, nor buildings.
 
Aramis said:
You misunderstand the meaning of ritual church. It is no reference at all to the buildings involved.

The Ruthenians are a Ritual Church. As are the Ukranian Catholics, the Maronites, the Romans, The Melkites, the Greek Catholics, the Italo-Albanian Catholics. Each is a separate ritual church, with separate hierarchy below the pope. All are fully catholic, but are allowed their own theology, their own liturgy, their own expression of the Catholic Dogma, their own bishops and priests.

I feel the Tridentine belongs in the church, just not sharing the same priests, bishops, nor buildings.
Click to expand...
Ah, but is it Traditional?

The system we have today is relativly new in the History of the Church. Traditionally we did not have the overlapping episcopal jurisdictions, it used to be that the Ritual Church that was predomonate in an area would administer the Churches of the other Ritual Churches that were in its territory. That is there would only be one bishop who covered a given area, not multiple bishops of different Ritual Churches.

Also there is some “shareing” going on today. That is Ruthenians, Melkites, and Ukranians (just to name three) all attend the same parish in many places as there are not enough to have a separate parish for each of them.

So are we Traditional? Or only Traditional when it meets what we want?
 
There have been overlapping jurisdictions for over a thousand years. True, mostly in italy. But it’s not new. It’s just recently that it became become common, but it isn’t new. See also the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem…

The TLM divide, and the SSPX schism, both speak to a need. But that need isn’t universal to the faithful… the Novus Ordo works for a great many. In Alaska, the NO is drawing growing congregations. Several parishes have had to expand.

But that doesn’t mean the 50 or so families (in Anchorage) who want union AND the TLM should not be part of the church, either. The separate Sui Iuris overlapping dioceses system seems exactly the “rite” way to handle the vocal minority with both dignity and respect. (Yes, an intentional pun.)

Because, in Alaska at least, a move to the TLM by one priest could force the TLM on MANY parishes, due to the circuit priest system in use in much of Alaska.
 
While this might seem like a good idea how does it get started? Where does its first bishops and priests come from? Will they take priests from dioceses that are already experiencing a priest shortage?

As for Church buildings, they could take over the buildings that have been closed down but I believe it would cost much to restore them and get them functioning again.

Where does the money come from? A small number of families usually can not support a parish on its own.

What about seminaries? Yes, to begin with they could use the seminaries of the religious orders that do the TLM but they are full, aren’t they? Will they set up their own semianry or use the current ones? If they use the current ones then what really is the difference?

The bishops have a document, the Program of Priestly Formation, which has the guidelines for all priests ordained in the United States. It has been signed off on by the USCCB and the Conference of Major Superiors of Men (I will add that all bishops regardless of Ritual Church have agreed to it). This document requires 30 credits of philosophy and 12 credits of theology before a candidate can enter the seminary (theologate) and that they must recieve an MDiv to be ordained. I am not sure how they are going to be handleing those orders who use unaccredited seminaries in the US.
 
A seminary of a religious order does not need to be “accredited” by the bishops as a national conference. It merely needs the approval of the local ordinary.

Hence the Fraternity of St. Peter has a seminary in the Diocese of Lincoln, which is answerable only to the Lincoln ordinary, not the American episcopal conference.

Fraternity priests do not receive an M.Div. degree.

There are problems, to be sure, in American seminary education: blatant disregard of Bl. John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia, lack of a requirement to make Latin proficiency necessary for all Roman Rite seminarians, let alone the Greek that the popes encourage seminarians to learn.

In general, speaking, I repeat, very generally, most seminaries in America suffer mostly from a lack of academic rigor. I once was told by an American seminary advisor that if seminarians were getting As in their academic courses their was “obviously a problem somewhere”.

With that attitude, it’s no wonder catechesis is so poor in so many locales.
 
Alex: Excellent points about poor formation leading to poor catechesis.

David:

Where to get the initial bishops from? That depends upon a number of factors. There are a few bishops who would far rather be TLM than NO, and are not part of the SSPX schism, nor part of one of the other TLM-oriented schisms (there are several, but the largest and most visible is the SSPX).

Quite honestly, the best protocol would be to form the rite with the priests of the non-schismatic TLM centered fraternities (and those schismatic priests willing to reform, repent, and return), and have them elect the initial bishop-candidates and then let Rome decide the Governing Metropolitan Archbishop. Likewise, the Schismatic Bishops could, if they were willing to recant their heresy, be suitable candidates for Bishoprics, but I would probably NOT want them as metropolitan Archbishops.

As to church buildings, Parishes of both rites might have to share buildings until new ones can be built for the smaller parish moves; that is a matter best left for the local ordinaries to come to agreement on. Some parishes would certainly petition for one or the other, some would simply accept dual use.

(Similar situations have existed with Ethnic communities in the Roman Rite, and eventually, one side or the other petitions for permission to build a new parish, often consolidating several parish’s ethnic communities into a single shared ethnic parish. Often with strongly thematic architecture.)

I’m not saying it would be an easy road for any, but it is a road that could lead to recalling the recently strayed schismatics back to the One Church, while GUARANTEEING the TLM can be made available in all the Roman Rite world that seeks it.

So, knowing that there are at least four Tridentine Bishops already, just from the hubbub about the excommunication those years ago, if they could be brought back in union, there is a starting corpus of a TLR Synod.
 
Likewise, the Schismatic Bishops could, if they were willing to recant their heresy, be suitable candidates for Bishoprics, but I would probably NOT want them as metropolitan Archbishops.
Click to expand...
What heresy are we talking about?
 
Aramis said:
Alex: Excellent points about poor formation leading to poor catechesis.

David:

Where to get the initial bishops from? That depends upon a number of factors. There are a few bishops who would far rather be TLM than NO, and are not part of the SSPX schism, nor part of one of the other TLM-oriented schisms (there are several, but the largest and most visible is the SSPX).

Quite honestly, the best protocol would be to form the rite with the priests of the non-schismatic TLM centered fraternities (and those schismatic priests willing to reform, repent, and return), and have them elect the initial bishop-candidates and then let Rome decide the Governing Metropolitan Archbishop. Likewise, the Schismatic Bishops could, if they were willing to recant their heresy, be suitable candidates for Bishoprics, but I would probably NOT want them as metropolitan Archbishops.
Click to expand...
So this new Church would start off with no secular priesthood? Elect bishops? I believe that the Church has already shot down that idea.
As to church buildings, Parishes of both rites might have to share buildings until new ones can be built for the smaller parish moves; that is a matter best left for the local ordinaries to come to agreement on. Some parishes would certainly petition for one or the other, some would simply accept dual use.

(Similar situations have existed with Ethnic communities in the Roman Rite, and eventually, one side or the other petitions for permission to build a new parish, often consolidating several parish’s ethnic communities into a single shared ethnic parish. Often with strongly thematic architecture.)
Click to expand...
Yes, but in the case of ethnic communities they are part of the same Church.

But there is precedent for this with Byzantine missions and small parishes using a Roman parish as a meeting place until they can build their own building.
I’m not saying it would be an easy road for any, but it is a road that could lead to recalling the recently strayed schismatics back to the One Church, while GUARANTEEING the TLM can be made available in all the Roman Rite world that seeks it.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about this. I do not think it will guarantee the TLM in the whole Roman Rite world. I just do not think the numbers are really there for such a thing.

I can see the creation of such a Church as a way to marginalize and dismiss those who have a preference for the TLM.

Before I get yelled at let me explain. There are Byzantine missions that are being closed down because there are not enough members in them and the bishop can not justify the use of a priest for them. Not every city has a Byzantine parish of any of the Byzantine Churches. I can see this happening to a TLM Church. Not everywhere will justify a parish, how many families would justify such a thing and be able to support the building (even if they share a building they must pay for it) and a priest? And now when people complain about it they will be told that they have their own Church, its their problem now.
So, knowing that there are at least four Tridentine Bishops already, just from the hubbub about the excommunication those years ago, if they could be brought back in union, there is a starting corpus of a TLR Synod.
Click to expand...
Four Tridentine Bishops? Where, I only know of the one in Brazil (isn’t it?) whose jurisdiction is the same as the local diocese. I am under the impression that there are no Tridentine diocesen bishops.
 
Please stay on topic. If you wish to discuss specifics or side issues, please start new threads. Thank you.
 
I am not cetain on how a latin mass works, but doesn’t it take away from the average person understanding what is going on?

How would the Homily be done?
 
mansr27 said:
I am not cetain on how a latin mass works, but doesn’t it take away from the average person understanding what is going on?

How would the Homily be done?
Click to expand...
Good question. I think watching the televised Mass on EWTN would answer some of those questions for you.

Latin isn’t really hard to pick up on.

I don’t think its being proposed that the Readings NOT be in the vernacular.
 
E.E.N.S said:
Since KM didn’t answer this part 😉 I will - the homily is in the vernacular.
Click to expand...
Sometimes in the vernaculars. Don’t forget, the TLM is universal and we all want to be able to worship together.
👍
 
BobP123 said:
Sometimes in the vernaculars. Don’t forget, the TLM is universal and we all want to be able to worship together.
👍
Click to expand...
Bob, please explain, in the US every TLM Mass I’ve attended since 1947 the readings & the homily were in the vernacular.🤷
 
Like said:
Bob, please explain, in the US every TLM Mass I’ve attended since 1947 the readings & the homily were in the vernacular.🤷
Click to expand...
I’ve seen DLM’s done with homilies in Yupiq and English.
 
Like said:
Bob, please explain, in the US every TLM Mass I’ve attended since 1947 the readings & the homily were in the vernacular.🤷
Click to expand...
I was referring to Papal and other Masses where more than one vernacular is used in the homily. Vernaculars vs vernacular. Those aren’t aren’t really part of the Mass anyway but it would be interesting to know where they started.
 
BobP123 said:
I was referring to Papal and other Masses where more than one vernacular is used in the homily. Vernaculars vs vernacular. Those aren’t aren’t really part of the Mass anyway but it would be interesting to know where they started.
Click to expand...
Ah, OK.👍
Please know Bob, I wasn’t correcting you, I just didn’t understand. Mahalo!
 
mansr27 said:
I am not cetain on how a latin mass works, but doesn’t it take away from the average person understanding what is going on?

How would the Homily be done?
Click to expand...
Homily is in the vernacular. The Mass is printed in both languages in the Missals. No problem at all for the layperson if he is interested in participating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top