Review of the "Old Rite"

[OraLabora]

Sounds like a classic HR problem except that it’s probably far more difficult to “fire” (laicize) a priest without a very grave delict occurring.

 

[choose_to_love]

Well, I “think” I hope that you are right; an ordinariate of some sort seems more stable and permanent than what exists now. I’m not sure if I have thought that through.

“more Latin Mass Catholics than Anglican Use” How does one determine this? Membership in parishes administered by FSSP/ICKSP etc.? For that matter, for the purposes of this discussion, how does one define ‘Latin Mass Catholics’? Those who “would” go to the EF if it were more available/more convenient, those who would only go to EF, those who go to both forms regularly but prefer EF, etc.?

re: new prefaces - - that is a good point; it would be weird if one month there were new prefaces, and six months later the whole enterprise gets shelved, but these are weird times.

re: no evidence/creating divisions - - yes, I agree, that’s why I put ‘creating divisions’ in the scare quotes.

re: parishes would belong to different bishops - - isn’t that the way it is now? FSSP only goes into a diocese if invited, and is subject to the local bishop. If it was an ordinariate, wouldn’t there be one bishop basically nationally for all the EF parishes? The AU parishes are not part of the diocese, per se, and are subject to Bp. Lopes, not the local ordinary, I think. The AU Ordinariate had an ordinary, before, but he, being married, was not a bishop.

I think the allure of having a bishop, who could ordain new priests, would be appealing to the traditional orders, since now they rely on finding a bishop who is able/willing to ordain in the EF.

 

[choose_to_love]

“diocese . . . have a responsibility to take care of their priests” Kind of like every family, eh?

 

[phil19034]

The SSPX themselves weren’t so hot on that idea - or at least they wanted it to be exempt from any control (directly or indirectly) by the local bishop which was basically a non-starter.

Agreed. The SSPX doesn’t like that idea and they were no in favor of it when St. Pope John Paul II created the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney in Brazil.

Actually, the creation of this PAASJMV is the reason the founder of the Institute of the Good Shepherd was kicked out of the SSPX. He felt it was a good compromise and was expelled for it. Later, several other members & seminarians of the SSPX left to join his new Institute of the Good Shepherd, which is in full communion with the Vatican.

The SSPX doesn’t like the idea because they want the whole Latin Rite to drop the Mass of Paul VI and return to the 1962 Mass.

But just because the SSPX doesn’t like the idea doesn’t mean Pope Francis doesn’t think it’s a good idea. My GUESS is that he wants to investigate this idea further, which is why he’s doing the survey.

 

[phil19034]

“more Latin Mass Catholics than Anglican Use” How does one determine this? Membership in parishes administered by FSSP/ICKSP etc.? For that matter, for the purposes of this discussion, how does one define ‘Latin Mass Catholics’?

I’m just looking at the number of parishes offering the Latin Mass vs the number in the Personal Ordinariates. If I counted correctly, there are currently 41 parishes in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter.

I’ve read that in the United States, there are currently only two parishes that offer the Anglican Use Mass that have not entered the Ordinariate (even if it’s 10, that’s not a lot of diocese Anglican Use Masses).

At last count, there are 57 Churches in the UK that are part of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham

And the *Personal Ordinariate of the Southern Cross" has approx 19 (and wikipedia says they only have about 2000 parishioners)

So that’s 119 parishes in the Ordinariates + the 2 US parishes outside the Ordinariate. Now, I’m sure there may be some personal parishes outside of the three Ordinariates offering the Anglican Use Mass, esp in Africa. So let’s round it up to 150 parishes worldwide to be safe.

The FSSP alone has 54 Churches in the United States & Canada alone. Worldwide, the FSSP has 244 Mass Centers and 44 Personal Parishes, totally 299 Churches around the world they offer the Latin Mass for.

And this number is just for the FSSP. According to https://www.latinmassdir.org/explore-countries/, the United States alone has 607 Churches/Chapels offering the Latin Mass, with 356 offering Sunday mass.

• NOTE: latinmassdir.org does NOT include the SSPX. They only include masses in full communion with the Church

So I think it’s safe to argue that more people attend the Latin Mass and that if ordinariates work for the Anglican Use, the Pope might consider it for the Latin Mass too.

God Bless

 

[InThePew]

The SSPX doesn’t like the idea because they want the whole Latin Rite to drop the Mass of Paul VI and return to the 1962 Mass.

But just because the SSPX doesn’t like the idea doesn’t mean Pope Francis doesn’t think it’s a good idea. My GUESS is that he wants to investigate this idea further, which is why he’s doing the survey.

If the SSPX doesn’t like the idea, then it’s dead in the water. The reason the don’t like the idea is that they don’t feel it gives them enough freedom to do what they want independent of the local bishop - but that’s not how the Church works.

“diocese . . . have a responsibility to take care of their priests” Kind of like every family, eh?

Complete with those members you’d really rather not have - more than a few crazy uncles! Personally though, I’m rather fond of the St Paul no work-no food approach. the bishop’s obligation to care for his priests isn’t unlimited and usually involves an expectation of something in return (where of course the priest is fit and relatively healthy).

 

[phil19034]

If the SSPX doesn’t like the idea, then it’s dead in the water. The reason the don’t like the idea is that they don’t feel it gives them enough freedom to do what they want independent of the local bishop - but that’s not how the Church works.

Father,
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean here? An ordinariate would make the SSPX completely independent of the local bishop.

For example: the Ordinariate parishes are totally independent of the local bishop, just like the Eastern Churches are in most places.

 

[InThePew]

The local bishop can still decide whether they can set up shop (so to speak) in his diocese and on what terms.

 

[phil19034]

The local bishop can still decide whether they can set up shop (so to speak) in his diocese and on what terms.

The bishop can do that with the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter?

I thought the Ordinariates were essentially overlay dioceses, similar to the Military Ordinariates, Archeparchy of Philadelphia, the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, etc?

 

[InThePew]

Members of the Ordinariate also belong to the diocese in which they live; so, they belong both to the diocese, and to the Ordinariate. The reality is that, regardless of what kinds of legal structure is set up, there’s going to be at least some overlap with the existing, territorial diocese and this can happen in any number of ways.

This obviously requires cooperation between the local bishop and the Ordinary / Prelate / Apostolic Administrator etc because the power of governance on the part of the Ordinary etc is intended to complement and not compete with that of the local bishop.

Even priests, who are incardinated into a diocese or ordinariate, have some crossover - for example, the local Opus Dei priest might supply at a neighbouring parish or the Ordinariate priest might do a wedding (or funeral) at another, non-Ordinariate parish.

So while Ordinariates and the like are essentially overlay dioceses, they don’t exist in isolation from the diocese they’re laid over!