You are simply arguing the exception, and you nonetheless prove my point. A priest can certainly be ordered to say Mass: I did not argue that all priests - even religious priests - are so ordered, but only that it is perfectly licit and lawful for them to be ordered, and that when they fulfill that obligation there is absolutely no doubt about the validity of the Mass they offered, even if they did it for purely obligational reasons.
For a priest to refuse, for example, to fulfill his obligations, when present, and produce the pathetic excuse that he simply doesn’t like offering Mass, would not negate the obligation, nor the lawfulness of the original order. To be law, a thing generally only needs to be reasonable and have for its aim the common good: saying Mass is certainly a reasonable thing to request from a priest, who is alone capable; and Masses certainly serve the common good.
Unfortunately, you and I don’t make Canon Law. This was not in the intention of Pope John Paul II. The priests, bishops and superiors go by Canon Law, not by by theological argument.
I may be misunderstanding you, but I do believe that Br. JR said that religious could not say the EF Mass in public unless they were allowed to do so by their superior. They are definitely allowed to say the EF Mass in private anytime they want to. The Holy Father made it very clear that the EF was never outlawed as such by the Church. I know a Jesuit who use to say it in private long before the SP, and he is not one who would be disobedient to his superior. Although he did have to hide fact that he was saying the EF from his colleagues because he would be persecuted for it. In fact, he still keeps it quiet that he says the EF on a regular basis in public because he will suffer persecution for it from other priests.
Only religious who have permission to celebrate private masses can use the EF in private. There are communities that do not have private masses. There is only one mass allowed in the house.
Secondly, if you belong to a fraternal community, the priesthood is accidental, not essential to the community. In which case, if you are a priest, you are bound to obey, like any other religious. The superior, the chapter or the constitutions have the right to determine when you say mass.
That is why SP refers to the Superior Major and Common Law.
The thing is that the religious are not an exception. Some people are telling me that I’m arguing using the exception. That is not the case.
The religious communities have these practices, because the norm allows for them. These practices have been part of the Church for over 1,000 years. They are included in the norm. Therefore, anything that is in conflict with these practices is also in conflict with the norm. There is only one priesthood. There can only be one norm. The circumstances are going to vary. You adapt to the circumstances, as long as you don’t violate the norm. Therefore, you cannot order a priest to do what the law does not require of priests.
An exception is when you have a norm that says the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the deacon, priest and bishop. The norm is not allowing for a layman. The layman becomes the exception and you have to get the proper permissions to use the EMHC.
In the case of priests who belong to religious communities, the superiors do not have to apply for any kind of indult or exception, because the norm in Canon Law allows for these practices, regardless of anything that is said by theological speculation . The governance of the Church is in the canons, not in theology.
The canons cannot violate dogma and moral doctrine. Any other theological opinion, is up to the pope who promulgates the canon. In this case, Pope Paul VI wrote the code of 1983 and Pope John Paul promulgated it. Whatever theological principles they took into consideration are reflected by the canons. Everything else that we can throw at it will not hold up in a court of law. Catholic tribunals ask only three questions.
- What does Canon Law say?
- What did the writer of the law intend?
- What do these words mean in light of the tradition of Church law?
They don’t ask, “What is theologically correct?” It’s a court of law, not a university classroom. Like any other court of law, it assumes that the law is built upon approved theological principles.
We have to think with the law.
Even more important, we have to remember what I’ve always said. We’re not going to get to heaven by winning an argument. As Mother Teresa said, “You get to heaven by doing small things with great love.”
All of this arguing is really an exercise in mental gymnastics that has very little to do with the spiritual life. It does not make us more virtuous. If anything, I think it makes us less charitable and less patient.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
