Scottish TLM Blocked By Bishop

[malphono]

I was looking at Canon Law and found an interesting Canon.

It is true that the Bishop’s approval is needed to celebrate the Mass out side of a Catholic Church, which applies in this story as the Church in question is part of the Chruch of Scottland and not the Catholic Church.

Another poster raised a very interesting question:

So, the point is, is it still canonically a Roman Catholic church, or does the Catholic church it as having been turned over to profane use and therefore has no claim on it.

If the building had been voluntarily turned over to the CofS (by sale or other means), it would certainly be CofS property and no longer canonically a Catholic church. The same would be true if it had been burned or otherwise damaged and abandoned, and subsequently resurrected and refurbished by the CofS. Or if it had been profaned (by murder, e.g.) and had not been reconsecrated before it was abandoned.

But none of those apply here: the situation is one where the building was involuntarily expropriated by, and turned into a house of worship of, the CofS. That would seem to leave the status of the building as it is in a grey area. I don’t pretend to know the answer, but perhaps I’ll ask a canon lawyer friend of mine to weigh in on it.

The Canon I found is interesting becuase it speaks of Catholic Chapels. They also need the Bishop’s approval for any of the sacraments to be celebrated.

Can. 1228 Without prejudice to the provision of Can. 1227, the permission of the local Ordinary is required for the celebration of Mass and of other sacred functions in any private chapel.

Note that the cited canon speaks to “private” chapels. That rule has been around for ages upon ages.

This blog is really a non-issue and seems to be used to cause problems rather than looking to the truth as to why it has happened as it has.

Shame on all those promoting this as a disobedient bishop.

Perhaps so. Personally I would take the position that the status of the F.SS.R is still a little “murky” (which they themselves seem to admit). In this particular instance, that would seem to remove any question of the bishop’s action.

 

[agp2176]

My apologies for some absolutely atrocious sentences in my posts. My brain is faster than my fingers at times

While I have never met the men in F.SS.R. I get a very good sense that they are good and holy men who are trying to do every possible to ensure that their journey home is a fruitful one. In a sense, they are like children, a tad rambunctious, but nonetheless obedient. I pray that they will be abundantly blessed.

As to the cathedral. It is truly magnificent. Having been there at least 5 times, you can actually get a very good feeling of what it may have been like to attend Mass in the centuries prior to the reformation.

I urge everyone to look at:

stmagnus.org/

Two important notes can be found there:
*COMMUNION SERVICES

We have an open Table at Communion services which means that any baptised member of Christ’s Church is welcome to share in the Sacrament. This includes children.
*

and
The Cathedral was assigned to the inhabitants of Kirkwall by King James III of Scotland in a charter dated 1486.

I see both as being major issues

This is another excellent site about the cathedral

sites.scran.ac.uk/stmagnus/

God bless

Tony

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

There have been several TLMs said at former Catholic churches in Scotland so the status of the cathedral is perhaps not an issue.

What I find most strange is that the bishop seems to claim that TLM still requires a permission. He either thinks that Una Voce (who wanted to organise it) are not aware of the new rules or the issue is with this particular religious community and their status at the moment.

I’m sure Damien Thompson will have more posts about this.

 

[Lujack]

There have been several TLMs said at former Catholic churches in Scotland so the status of the cathedral is perhaps not an issue.

What I find most strange is that the bishop seems to claim that TLM still requires a permission. He either thinks that Una Voce (who wanted to organise it) are not aware of the new rules or the issue is with this particular religious community and their status at the moment.

I’m sure Damien Thompson will have more posts about this.

I don’t think that the bishop is saying that the EF requires his permission; he appears to be saying that this community of priests need his permission to licitly celebrate any Mass in public, and that he is, at this time, with-holding that permission from them. That’s entirely different.

 

[Ockham]

“Like **all priests of the Church **they are at liberty to celebrate the forma extraordinaria privately without specific permission, and to have some people with them when they do, but for public celebration the local bishop’s permission is needed.”

Bishop Moran.

Please explain to me how this in not disobedience to the Holy Father’s direction? Also, care and consideration should be exercised before throwing shame around.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

“Like **all priests of the Church **they are at liberty to celebrate the forma extraordinaria privately without specific permission, and to have some people with them when they do, but for public celebration the local bishop’s permission is needed.”

Bishop Moran.

Please explain to me how this in not disobedience to the Holy Father’s direction? Also, care and consideration should be exercised before throwing shame around.

Read your bolded parts and then reread what Lujack said…

I don’t think that the bishop is saying that the EF requires his permission; he appears to be saying that this community of priests need his permission to licitly celebrate any Mass in public, and that he is, at this time, with-holding that permission from them. That’s entirely different.

Bishop Moran is only addressed the F.SS.R. who are still in an irregular state and require permission to celebrate publicly.

Actually, all religious need the bishops approval for public celebration of the Liturgy no bishop is forced to accept any religious order into his diocese.

He states that, like all priests, they can celebrate any form of the Mass privately within the diocese but for them to have a public celebration (of any form) they need his permission.

 

[Ockham]

You are both putting words in the Bishop’s mouth. He is most assuredly aware of Mr.Thompson’s article so clarification would be prudent if applicable.

I’d still like to know why this order isn’t in good standing. Oh, and if “profane use” was the grounds for not offering Mass in a church then most would be inaccessible today.

If the bishops of Scotland were committed to proper rubics and teachings then why is this seminar going forward:

“I am writing to appeal to you not to attend or send any volunteers from your parish to the forthcoming study day held by Professor Thomas Groome on Tuesday the 20th of April 2010 in Glasgow. The study day, entitled “Teaching as Jesus Did: Handing on the Faith in the 21st Century”, is being given to priests, primary and secondary school teachers, and parish catechists and is supported by the Archdiocese of Glasgow and the Scottish Catholic Education Service. Professor Groome, a laicised priest and professor of religious education and theology at Boston College, has made no secret of his dissent from the teachings of the Catholic Church, including her infallible teachings.”
David Brower

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/04/laymans-appeal-to-scottish-catholics.html

 

[Ockham]

Was Archbishop Conti taken out of context too?

“The Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, has issued private guidelines for celebrating the traditional Latin Catholic Mass in his diocese that go against both the letter and the spirit of Pope Benedict XVI’s ruling liberating the old Missal”.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/3684081/Archbishop_Conti_shuns_Popes_guidance/

 

[roadsend]

Was Archbishop Conti taken out of context too?

“The Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, has issued private guidelines for celebrating the traditional Latin Catholic Mass in his diocese that go against both the letter and the spirit of Pope Benedict XVI’s ruling liberating the old Missal”.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/3684081/Archbishop_Conti_shuns_Popes_guidance/

From your link:
“Conti is basically saying that HE will decide who (if anyone) is allowed to celebrate the traditional Mass publicly in Glasgow. Yet the Pope’s apostolic letter on the subject makes it perfectly clear that the decision is up to priests, not bishops. Conti also hints that priests ordained after 1970 are unlikely to be qualified to say the traditional Mass and therefore won’t be allowed to. Appalling.”

Unflapping believable!
There is no emergency, folks.
Get those heads back down in the sand.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’d still like to know why this order isn’t in good standing. Oh, and if “profane use” was the grounds for not offering Mass in a church then most would be inaccessible today.

Doesn’t matter if they are in good standing. No bishop is required to allow any religious order to operate within his diocese. Can’t get more traditional than that as it has always been that way.

 

[Ockham]

You are adding to the Bishop’s words. If there has been a misunderstanding I’ll gladly post a clarification. Otherwise, I’ll take him at his word which has been posted several times on this thread. Archbishop Conti doesn’t seem to approve the EF either. Any dispute there?

 

[ProVobis]

Conti also hints that priests ordained after 1970 are unlikely to be qualified to say the traditional Mass and therefore won’t be allowed to. Appalling."

This is very reminiscent of a particular bishop on the West Coast trying to restrict the TLM to only those who remembered it prior to Vatican II. And this was after JPII decreed a “wide and generous” dose of TLMs from the bishops.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You are adding to the Bishop’s words. If there has been a misunderstanding I’ll gladly post a clarification. Otherwise, I’ll take him at his word which has been posted several times on this thread. Archbishop Conti doesn’t seem to approve the EF either. Any dispute there?

I do not know about Archbishop Conti and it really does not matter what he thinks as this thread is about another diocese.

As for the Bishop’s comments, IMHO it is you who are reading into it.

 

[roadsend]

This is very reminiscent of a particular bishop on the West Coast trying to restrict the TLM to only those who remembered it prior to Vatican II. And this was after JPII decreed a “wide and generous” dose of TLMs from the bishops.

Yup, I remember that well.
Just about every bishop on the Left Coast had the same kind of attitude.
Most, unfortunately still do.
It has been reported that that particular bishop has already had a replacement named for when he retires shortly.
Deo Gratias. Alleluia, Alleluia.

 

[ProVobis]

Doesn’t matter if they are in good standing. No bishop is required to allow any religious order to operate within his diocese. Can’t get more traditional than that as it has always been that way.

It is one thing to restrict a priest or order from saying Mass within your diocese. But when you deliberately mislead the faithful or make it known to the faithful that you aren’t following the decrees of the Pope, that is definitely most damaging. I’m not saying this particular bishop is an any way guilty of anything as I don’t know the full story, but what have we heard to the contrary?

 

[Ockham]

I do not know about Archbishop Conti and it really does not matter what he thinks as this thread is about another diocese.

As for the Bishop’s comments, IMHO it is you who are reading into it.

I am repeating exactly what the Bishop wrote. You and others are adding things like “I don’t think the Bishop is saying…”

As for Archbishop Conti: “The Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, has issued private guidelines for celebrating the traditional Latin Catholic Mass in his diocese that go against both the letter and the spirit of Pope Benedict XVI’s ruling liberating the old Missal.”

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/3684081/Archbishop_Conti_shuns_Popes_guidance/