Priest response to TLM leaves me stunned

[ConstantineTG]

By the way, here is the Canon Law I was talking about

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

 

[Corki]

Do you have a source, Corki? Are saying the Pope issued a retraction or clarification to SP?

How many are in your “large groups?” I’ve yet to see this, so it depends on your definition of “large.”

I am saying that SP was not issued in English and “stable group” is one person’s translation of the Latin. Father Z has a nice discussion of the dynamics of the translation right after SP came out.

In my own parish, with a priest who is fluent with Latin, over a third of the English Mass attendees unsuccessfully requested a OF Mass. At the OF I attended right after SP was implemented, there was never more than 200 - 300 people in attendance at any of the Masses I went to. I went to all but one of those offered before it was cancelled. At another parish near me, over 200 parishioners signed a petetion for the OF and received a summary “no”.

I get the whole “don’t have to do it” approach and it is certainly the right of a bishop or priest to refuse. However, SP was not written to satisfy priests who want to say private Masses or Bishops who want to exert more control over the Masses in their diocese. The intro to SP states the reason for itself:

Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:

How is the current implementation of SP, with many priests and Bishops refusing to provide EF Masses, consistent with a documentation that was written to answer the “insistent prayers of the faithful”?

 

[benedictgal]

By the way, here is the Canon Law I was talking about

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

And, this exception comes into play with the MP, Constantine. The bishop does not have universal and supreme authority. Only the Holy Father has.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Yes, but he must also observe canon 905 which states a priest is not say more than 1 Mass per day or with the bishop’s permission 2 Masses on a weekday or 3 on a Sunday.

That’s not at issue here.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[benedictgal]

I am saying that SP was not issued in English and “stable group” is one person’s translation of the Latin. Father Z has a nice discussion of the dynamics of the translation right after SP came out.

In my own parish, with a priest who is fluent with Latin, over a third of the English Mass attendees unsuccessfully requested a OF Mass. At the OF I attended right after SP was implemented, there was never more than 200 - 300 people in attendance at any of the Masses I went to. I went to all but one of those offered before it was cancelled. At another parish near me, over 200 parishioners signed a petetion for the OF and received a summary “no”.

I get the whole “don’t have to do it” approach and it is certainly the right of a bishop or priest to refuse. However, SP was not written to satisfy priests who want to say private Masses or Bishops who want to exert more control over the Masses in their diocese. The intro to SP states the reason for itself:

How is the current implementation of SP, with many priests and Bishops refusing to provide EF Masses, consistent with a documentation that was written to answer the “insistent prayers of the faithful”?

If the bishop remains unrepsonsive and unyielding, then the faithful can contact the Ecclesia Dei commission. Then, the commission will contact the bishop and assist him in facilitating the request of the faithful. It may seem tedious, but, if the faithful really want this, they have to do some legwork, too.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And, this exception comes into play with the MP, Constantine. The bishop does not have universal and supreme authority. Only the Holy Father has.

But the Pope’s MP didn’t supercede a Bishop’s authority on how Masses are implemented for his diocese. In fact in the text of Summorum Pontificum, it supports a Bishops right over his diocese when it comes to implementing EF Masses.

 

[Ockham]

First, you just made my point. I doubt you’ll ever say the same thing when any other regular bishop who ordains other bishops. The fact that Abp. Lefebvre disregarded the Canonical Law that required a Papal approval of all new bishops puts into question his respect and faith in the hierarchy of the Church.

Why did the Vatican ignore the applications?

The SSPX does not dispute any matter of doctrine or dogma. This whole issue is due to paperwork not getting processed.

 

[benedictgal]

But the Pope’s MP didn’t supercede a Bishop’s authority on how Masses are implemented for his diocese. In fact in the text of Summorum Pontificum, it supports a Bishops right over his diocese when it comes to implementing EF Masses.

Actually, this is what SP states:

§1. In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier
liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the
Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the
welfare of these faithful harmonizes with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish,
under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and
favoring the unity of the whole Church.

§2. Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on
working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be
held.

§3. For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in
this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or
occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.

§4. Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not
juridically impeded.

§5. In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector
of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions
recognized by the Apostolic See.

Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 §1, has not obtained satisfaction to
their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei.”

Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is
unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” to obtain
counsel and assistance.

Art. 9. §1. The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage,
Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

§2. Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using
the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

§3. Clerics ordained “in sacris constitutis” may use the Roman Breviary promulgated
by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.

Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal
parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the
Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

It does not state the bishop can deny the faithful their right, under SP, to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the EF.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually, this is what SP states:

It does not state the bishop can deny the faithful their right, under SP, to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the EF.

You highlighted article 7 which also has a provision “If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place…”. This means he is under no extraordinary obligation to fulfill such request. Now, I don’t know what Ecclesia Dei will do, if they will facilitate a transfer of a priest able to celebrate the EF. But clearly, SP doesn’t indicate that the Diocesan Bishop must do everything. If a Diocesan Bishop says he doesn’t have a priest thats qualified to celebrate the EF in a public Mass, then thats that. He can refer the matter to Ecclesia Dei.

 

[Adeodatus]

It does not state the bishop can deny the faithful their right, under SP, to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the EF.

Exactly. It even says that if the bishop stands in the way of the EF, the laity are invited to tattle on him to the Vatican.

And again, PCED has stated that a pastor may freely substitute in an EF Mass on a parish schedule.

I think that no one can say that it is not the clear desire of our Holy Father the Pope that those who want access to the EF should have it. That’s the whole point of the MP and of PCED’s additional clarifications.

I don’t know for what reason so many people are bound and determined to deny access to this Mass to the faithful. I can’t really speculate about it in a charitable way.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

My understanding of the 2007 SP is that it allows the priest to say the TLM if he so chooses without reprimand by his local bishop. But how can he with all these preexisting restrictions? Any ideas as to how a priest can introduce an EF into his church, presuming he wants to and is qualified, when he’s saying 3 Masses already and has full attendance at each Mass?

There’s nothing that says a priest must] say every Mass at his parish. The pastor could say 2 Masses and invite another priest to come in and say one of the other Masses thus freeing himself to say the TLM as his 3rd Mass of the day.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why did the Vatican ignore the applications?

I’m not from the Vatican nor am I interested in making up my own conspiracy theory. All I can see is he chose to disregard Canon Law.

The SSPX does not dispute any matter of doctrine or dogma. This whole issue is due to paperwork not getting processed.

Disobedience is still disobedience. If there is a large tree on public land that its branches extend to over your lawn and thus you always have to deal with fallen leaves and fruit, and in some cases an excessive amount of bird poop. Does it give you a right to cut that tree? You can request that from the city, but if they take their time is that a justification for you to just go ahead because its an inconvenience to yourself?

Jesus taught humility and obedience. And this is not a trivial matter, its a violation of Canon Law.

Also, guitars at mass and female altar servers are not against doctrine or dogma and in fact supported by the appropriate Church documents, I wonder why the likes of you are so passionate in opposing that. But support someone who has blatantly disregarded Canon Law.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

What heresy is found in an SSPX Mass?

Not necessarily heresy but disobedient actions. SSPX priests have no faculties. Any priest worth his salt would submit to whatever Rome asked of him in order to regain his faculties. The fact the SSPX clergy are still technically suspended makes their actions disobedient and unlawful. Why would anyone want to support that?

 

[malphono]

You highlighted article 7 which also has a provision “If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place…”. This means he is under no extraordinary obligation to fulfill such request. Now, I don’t know what Ecclesia Dei will do, if they will facilitate a transfer of a priest able to celebrate the EF. But clearly, SP doesn’t indicate that the Diocesan Bishop must do everything. If a Diocesan Bishop says he doesn’t have a priest thats qualified to celebrate the EF in a public Mass, then thats that. He can refer the matter to Ecclesia Dei.

The claim by a bishop that he has “no priest qualified to offer the EF” is one that has been used as nauseam and has minimal merit. The claim itself tends to be rather subjective, particularly so when there is a priest (or priests) willing and able to offer the EF in that diocese, but are impeded from doing so by the bishop. Any priest who is willing is able to learn to offer the EF. Sometimes it falls to PCED to “nudge” the bishop into compliance.

 

[malphono]

I don’t know for what reason so many people are bound and determined to deny access to this Mass to the faithful. I can’t really speculate about it in a charitable way.

I still think it has to do with the “fear factor” that I’ve spoken of in this and other threads.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Exactly. It even says that if the bishop stands in the way of the EF, the laity are invited to tattle on him to the Vatican.

And again, PCED has stated that a pastor may freely substitute in an EF Mass on a parish schedule.

I think that no one can say that it is not the clear desire of our Holy Father the Pope that those who want access to the EF should have it. That’s the whole point of the MP and of PCED’s additional clarifications.

I don’t know for what reason so many people are bound and determined to deny access to this Mass to the faithful. I can’t really speculate about it in a charitable way.

Actually, it reads this:

Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

Its not a guaranteed that it must be done at all costs. Note the following conditions:
a. There must be a stable group
b. under the guidance of the bishop (priest cannot supersede the Bishop)
c. avoid discord and favor the unity of the whole Church

Now if the group is similar to some of the attitude we see here where people would start calling the OF questionable, invalid, lesser, then a priest or bishop would have the right to stop the EF and say its detrimental to the unity of the Church in their parish and/or diocese.

Don’t forget that Article 1 of the same document explicitly states that the OF and EF are two expressions of the same Roman Rite. IT MEANS THEY ARE EQUAL AND THE SAME. I wonder why people here do not invoke Article 1?

 

[ConstantineTG]

The claim by a bishop that he has “no priest qualified to offer the EF” is one that has been used as nauseam and has minimal merit. The claim itself tends to be rather subjective, particularly so when there is a priest (or priests) willing and able to offer the EF in that diocese, but are impeded from doing so by the bishop. Any priest who is willing is able to learn to offer the EF. Sometimes it falls to PCED to “nudge” the bishop into compliance.

Take note that one of the conditions in SP is also that there should be no division within the Church caused by the EF. Reading around in CAF, I’m not surprised if a Bishop actually sees a cause for division.

 

[benedictgal]

You highlighted article 7 which also has a provision “If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place…”. This means he is under no extraordinary obligation to fulfill such request. Now, I don’t know what Ecclesia Dei will do, if they will facilitate a transfer of a priest able to celebrate the EF. But clearly, SP doesn’t indicate that the Diocesan Bishop must do everything. If a Diocesan Bishop says he doesn’t have a priest thats qualified to celebrate the EF in a public Mass, then thats that. He can refer the matter to Ecclesia Dei.

Actually, if the bishop cannot do this (or, in some cases, will not), then Ecclesia Dei steps in to provide the necessary guidance, assistance and compliance. Simply saying that he cannot find a priest to do this does not necessarily mean that the matter is dead, nor can the bishop use that as an excuse not to have the EF. In fact, I believe that there have been cases where the Ecclesia Dei Commission has had to step in and fix the matter.

 

[Ockham]

I’m not from the Vatican nor am I interested in making up my own conspiracy theory. All I can see is he chose to disregard Canon Law.

How convenient.

Jesus taught humility and obedience. And this is not a trivial matter, its a violation of Canon Law.

Jesus also taught defence of the Truth. He knew there would be enemies within as one was present at the Last Supper.

Also, guitars at mass and female altar servers are not against doctrine or dogma and in fact supported by the appropriate Church documents, I wonder why the likes of you are so passionate in opposing that. But support someone who has blatantly disregarded Canon Law.

Usually when someone throws a ‘the likes of you’ emotion has hijacked their reasoning skills.

Can you show me the Church documents calling for guitars? I believe Pope John Paul II ruled against altar girls. Do you have that information handy?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

In the Church it shows the contrast between the traditional appeal and the new order.

Not necessarily. In Africa vocations are booming under the “Vatican II Church.” Poland’s “Novus Ordo Church” has more priests than it knows what to do with. Not to mention, who knows what the picture will be 100 years from now.

Vocations within the Church have gone up and down throughout history. The question is, do we just run off and do our own thing or do we hold fast to the barque of St. Peter?