I should have made myself clearer, I was pointing out that people made the choice regarding the traditional latin sacraments and even by your list of reasons could not be held to be in the wrong, though you have critcised them for doing so, that is all. Obedience is not as sometimes you make it appear an absolute, it is a qualified or limited Virtue as St Thomas Aquinas makes clear. One cannot say that for example if the dominicans decided in the past that no dominican could celebrate the TLM they should stop celebrating it or leave. Why? Because the decision was based on what is **now universally accepted to be flawed reasoning **, the TLM was never banned, indeed it has been questioned whether it could even have been banned, therefore one who decided to witness to the truth and justice (as depriving a person of a right given and protected by the church cannot be said to be anything other than an injustice and a grave wrong) cannot be called ‘disobedient’ in a negative sense. You may disagree and I am sure you will but the many hundreds of priests and religious who thought otherwise would likewise disagree with you.
We’re discussing men in vows here, not the layman in the pew. Men in vows may never disobey unless they are commanded to sin. That’s what St. Thomas said. Even then, one must remember that St. Thomas has no authority over religious life. Even if he had said something else, which he did not, superiors could ignore it as the Church ignores some of Aquinas’ other errors. He is a genius, but was never pope or a major supeior. He was a very humble friar.
Summorum Pontficum is an interesting example, because the fact is that it does say that regular priests (priests who are religious) must abide by the rules of their institutes and by the authority of the major superior. Regular priests were given permission to celebrate the EF in private, not in public. Whether they clebrate it in public is up to the major superior. The major superior has the right to prohibit it. He does not need to have a reason to do so other than, “I’m the superior.”
There is nothing in theology or canon law that requires religious superiors or diocesan bishops to give a reason when they command something, unless the law requires them to do so. For example, the law does require superiors to give an accounting to the general chapter, not to individual religious, not to the bishop, no to the laity, only to the chapter.
Summorum Pontificum does not say that a major superior needs to have a reason to prohibit the EF. It says that he must follow the Ordinary Law of his institute. Every constitution defines the limits and powers of the superior. For example, in the Rule of St. Francis, the powers of the superior are two steps beneat those of Jesus. Francis commands obedience in all things, except sin. He is very specific that this does not mean that I can disobey, because the superior is committing a sin of injustice against me. I can disobey if the superior commands me to do something that the Church says is a sin. It can’t even be something that I believe is a sin. I’m not allowed that freedom to make up my own mind. I must go by what the Church calls a sin.
In other constitutions, the religious have government by consensus. There is a major superior, but he and his subjects must reach an agreement. The Dominicans govern this way.
In other communities, the superior is the voice of Christ and cannot be questioned. The Benedictines govern this way. The abbot even writes the breviary and missal for the community. I don’t think they literally write it, but my guess is that the abbot must approve it or it does not fly. The wording they use is that he has so much power that he can even write their liturgical books and they have to comply.
Obviously, all of these superiors have to comply with canon law, the Sacred Congregation for Religious and with the Holy See.
There have been times when superiors have been wrong and even abussive. But the Church has never dispensed the religious from obeying them, if what the superior commands or prohibits is not a sin. It may be an abuse of power or an error of judgment, but it’s not a sin. T
I think that you need to understand that I don’t have an ax to grind with the EF. My point is that those who prefer the EF cannot defend it at the expense of changing the rules that have governed religious life and dioceses for centuries. If we are to be true to Tradition, then we must be true to the traditions that govern these communities as well.
In this case, if a Franciscan superior says to a friar-priest, “You may not celebrate mass in private.” It’s a rather unusual command, but he’s not asking the friar to sin. In fact, the Rule of St. Francis says that those friars who are priests are not to celebrate mass in private without the permission of the superior. If there is more than one ordained friar in the house, only one can celebrate mass and everyone else, ordained or not must attend. The superior decides who celebrates mass. In this case, the friar who may dearly love the EF can’t celebrate it, because Summorum Pontificum says that regular priests may clebrate the EF in private, but his superior has told him that he cannot celebrate mass in private.
Notice, the superior is not saying, “You cannot celebrate the EF in private.” That would be contrary to the law. He’s saying, “You cannot celebrate mass in private and by the way, you cannot celebrate the EF in public.” The rule says that he has to obey. So does Summorum Pontificum. He is not being told to sin.
By the way, that’s just an example. I don’t know of any superior who is so mean. I know that some superiors put restrictions on when the EF is celebrated, but I have no knowledge of any that prohibit it. I don’t want to start rumors.
