The only valid reason for a Bishop to forbid it is if the priest isn’t prepared to pray the TLM.How can a Bishop forbid the EF Mass if the Pope has said it is to be allowed?
Nice try, but I like the TLM, and was just at High Mass last week. What I don’t like is mistaken impressions of what SP said, especially when, for instance as above, those errors coupled with thirdhand reports of some bishop’s policies result in calumnious remarks about the bishop as being “in open rebellion” against the Pope.
This is a very tricky situation. First, though, we probably need a little history behind the diocese in question. We were a part of the Diocese of Corpus Christi up until July 3, 2000, when Pope John Paul II erected our own diocese. For a while, the church that eventually became our Cathedral did have an EF, but, that was while we were a part of Corpus Christi. It went on for about a month, but, sadly, it waned. Now, there was a priest from Corpus Christi who was a part of the FSSP who would travel to Laredo to celebrate the EF on a biweekly basis. Oddly enough, the parish where this took place was the former parish of the OP’s pastor. I do not remember, however, if this happened before the erection of our diocese. Nonetheless, there is a precedent in our city for Mass in the EF.
You definately sound the most knowledgable here. Nice post.Summorum Pontificum released the Tridentine or Extraordinary Form so that ANY secular priest who belongs to a diocese can celebrate it. If a priest is a diocesan priest, then he is a secular priest. He does not need the permission of the bishop to celebrate the EF. But he must comply with any requirements that his bishop may have for the celebration. For example, if the bishop says that there must be a certain number of people, the priest must comply with that. That is not part of the Motu Propio… That is a diocesan decision. If he has to bump a regular mass from the schedule, he must check that out with the chancery. Mass schedules are usually under the jurisdiction of the local pastor. But the faithful can complain to the chancery if they are bumped, for the EF, precisely because Pope Benedict left that caveat in when he officially named it “extraordinary”. A principle of law is that whatever is extraordinary cannot replace the ordinary unless there is just cause. If you bump 500 people to put in a mass for 100 people, you have a problem and the bishop may not be too happy about it.
Another valid concern that does arise is the number of masses that a priest may say in one day. Normally, the priest should celebrate only one mass. Given the shortage, many priests celebrate two. Three requires permission of the bishop or the major superior, if the priest is a consecrated religious. If the priest is going to add a mass to the parish schedule, he has to ensure that the celebrant does not go over the allowed number of masses that he can celebrate in one day. He has to give preference to that which is ordinary, in this case the OF.
Once the hurdles of schedules and permissions are clear, the next hurdle is the most difficult. Summorum Pontificum gave secular priests permission to celebrate the EF, with specific directives, but it does not mandate it. A priest does not have to accept the request, even if 1,000 people show up at his front door. The law would dictate that he not be looked at as a bad guy because he does not want to celebrate the EF. It is his right to decline the invitation to do so. We’re not talking here about what is or is not more or less spiritual. That gets very subjective. We’re talking here about what is the right of the priest. Only a priest who is a member of a religious order can be mandated to celebrate either form. This is what Summorum Pontificum is referring to when it says “according to common law.”
If the priests in your parish belong to a religious or secular institute, they work in the diocese under a contract. They are not part of the diocese. You are, but they are not. What the bishop can demand of them depends on the contract between the diocese and the community. Regardless of what the bishop may want, once the contract is signed and the religious community is established in the diocese, the contract binds the bishop in perpetuity. He cannot change it unilaterally. That is called suppression. No bishop may suppress a religious once the authority has been granted and the conditions have been agreed upon. There has to be a mutual agreement between the bishop and the religious superior. There is rarely a religious superior who will deny permission to celebrate the EF, especially for the laity. But good manners require that the superior be consulted, even if we know that he’s going to give permission.
I don’t know if your parish priest is a religious, a society priest or a diocesan priest. If he is a diocesan priest, he can celebrate the mass, provided that he clear the hurdles that I mentioned above. If the celebration of the EF disturbs the routine and life of the parish, then he is going to face some difficulties.
Some pastors and religious superiors do allow a priest to come from another place to celebrate mass for a special population. This happens a lot when you have people of another language group or another rite. There is a regular visiting priest who comes every Sunday at a certain time for that population. This may be another avenue that you can pursue. Nevertheless, you have to make sure that you have the numbers before you make that request and you have the money to pay for this service. This may mean paying the priest a stipend and paying a little for AC/heating and so forth. It’s usually very little, just enough to cover the expense.
I would not use the argument of better theology at the EF. The fact is that the Holy Father himself does not believe this. This is an argument made by many people, but not supported by either the Holy Father or by the Vatican Curia. While everyone agrees that the EF is very rich, there is a general agreement that the poor theology of the OF is not because of the form, but because of the incorrect way in which the form is celebrated. This has validity. If you watch the EF on EWTN, at the National Shrine, at certain religious houses, certain parishes or even the Vatican, it is done in a manner that is theologically sound and faithful to the on-going theology of the mass. The richness of the EF is in its externals, not in the essential. The essential is not different between the two forms when done correctly.
The bishop does have control over the masses celebrated in his parishes. Summorum Pontificum gives secular priests permission to celebrat the EF without having to ask for permission. It does not give them permission to change diocesan or parish practices. Canon law must be followed. The bishop as the pastor of his diocese.
If you have enough people who want the EF and no priest in the parish can celebrate it or will celebrate it, you may want to ask the pastor if you can scout around for a priest to come over and do so. But keep in mind the rules. I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Read my post above. Summorum Pontificum gives secular priests (only) freedom to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. But it does not change the canons regarding the rights of bishops over their parishes.
A good example is this. Father X wants to celebrate mass in the EF. He does not need permission to do so, if he’s a secular priest. Father wants to celebrate it at St. Mary’s Catholic Church. St. Mary’s is not his property. It belongs to the diocese. The diocese cannot stop Father from celebrating the EF of the mass. But it can say that it may not be done at St. Mary’s.
The Holy Father deliberately left that part out of the letter so as not to undermine the authority of the diocesan bishop over his jurisdiction. It was the intention of the Holy Father to clarify that the Tridentine Form can be celebrated by secular priests [and by religious priests if they have permission from their community]. It was not the intention of the Holy Father to change the laws on how dioceses are run and who has what authority over the parishes.
To avoid that conflict, he does not touch on authority over parishes in the letter. He deals only with the right of the priest to celebrate the form. Therefore, all the canons regarding the rights of pastors remain in place. The bishop is the pastor of the diocese. There has to be some coordination between the bishop and the priest who wants to celebrate the EF.
The Holy Father is not a canon lawyer himself, but one of the best canon lawyers in the world is his secretary and personal advisor. I’m sure that Don Girogio gets consulted before these documents hit the public. He was always consulted when he was Cardinal Ratzinger’s right hand man at the Curia. You liberate the Tridentine Form, but you leave the authority of the bishop over the parish and the faithful intact, if you are careful with the wording. I cannot imagine another way of doing this without being that cautious.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Actually, the priest was ordained prior to the Second Vatican Council so he does know the EF very well. He is also from another country and speaks about seven languages fluently.
JR, down here (and, for the record, I am from the same diocese as the OP), it is not unheard of for a priest to have to celebrate more than three Masses in one day. Sadly, if one priest is filling in for another one who is on vacation, he sometimes has to cover that parish and his own. If you are in a one-priest parish, chances are that your pastor will be celebrating all of the weekend Masses (and, many of them are usually four on a Sunday). Second, in parishes that have a Neocatechumenal group, another Mass is celebrated on Saturday evenings primarily for them, regardless of whether or not the same priest has had weddings and funerals, plus the regular parish vigil Mass.Read my post above. Summorum Pontificum gives secular priests (only) freedom to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. But it does not change the canons regarding the rights of bishops over their parishes.
A good example is this. Father X wants to celebrate mass in the EF. He does not need permission to do so, if he’s a secular priest. Father wants to celebrate it at St. Mary’s Catholic Church. St. Mary’s is not his property. It belongs to the diocese. The diocese cannot stop Father from celebrating the EF of the mass. But it can say that it may not be done at St. Mary’s.
The Holy Father deliberately left that part out of the letter so as not to undermine the authority of the diocesan bishop over his jurisdiction. It was the intention of the Holy Father to clarify that the Tridentine Form can be celebrated by secular priests [and by religious priests if they have permission from their community]. It was not the intention of the Holy Father to change the laws on how dioceses are run and who has what authority over the parishes.
To avoid that conflict, he does not touch on authority over parishes in the letter. He deals only with the right of the priest to celebrate the form. Therefore, all the canons regarding the rights of pastors remain in place. The bishop is the pastor of the diocese. There has to be some coordination between the bishop and the priest who wants to celebrate the EF.
The Holy Father is not a canon lawyer himself, but one of the best canon lawyers in the world is his secretary and personal advisor. I’m sure that Don Girogio gets consulted before these documents hit the public. He was always consulted when he was Cardinal Ratzinger’s right hand man at the Curia. You liberate the Tridentine Form, but you leave the authority of the bishop over the parish and the faithful intact, if you are careful with the wording. I cannot imagine another way of doing this without being that cautious.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The priest has to “know good Latin” and be familiar with all the 1962 liturgical books per Cardinal Arinze as one of the conditions in saying the EF. Actually his bishop would probably require the priest has a good working knowledge of any vernacular he says his Mass in. Just speaking practicality here.
The bishop who bans priests from celebrating the TLM has a problem with Pope Benedict. Last time I check the pope has the final word and the bishops, if they are in communion with the pope, are oblilged to obey.
But, the SSPX is not a valid option here. We need to work within the parameters that the Church gives us and the SSPX is not one of them. Bear in mind that while the wheels of Rome may grind slowly, the grind finely. We need to follow the process along the correct way.
This is easy to check out…there is no requirement for a priest to get the approval of his ordinary. The following is from SP,
It goes on to say,
There simply is no need to get the bishops approval.
The OP’s bishop is a perfect example of why the Vatican and the SSPX have to reconcile their differences and make up for the past. It’s bizarre how a group faithful to the Church and all her traditions got excommunicated yet so many with ulterior motives designed to weaken the faith are allowed to continue and go unpunished.
While I can see your point, this is, after all, my bishop. While I do not agree with many of the courses of actions the bishop has taken, I am not going to encourage my diocesan brother to travel a route that is not endorsed by Rome. We need to work with the bishop under the parameters given to us in Summorum Pontificum.
That article only applies to a priest celebrating a private Mass, not an official Parish Mass.
Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications and has called for an increase in the EF. If a local bishop does not allow his priests to say the EF then the faithful have the right to attend the SSPX.
Not so…the priest can decide to say a TLM and if people want to attend that is perfectly licit. In this case he does not require the bishops approval. This is how SP has been interpreted.
The SSPX is still not in communion with Rome and one cannot attend services there until they are.