SSPX

[Melchior_1]

Examples of places where private Masses could be banned for valid reasons:

• Any order where equality and statuses are equal, without titles. In homes where there is only one priest and his Brothers do not call him Father, I could see why you’d want to ban private Masses. It would put a wedge in the community, whereas public Masses could have forced attendance.
• Orders that have their own Rite. A Dominican Prior may suppress private Masses because he wants the community to use the Dominican Rite exclusively.

 

[jwinch2]

…I think we need some direct evidence, such as a statement out of the Vatican.

Excellent. Since you are the one calling for this I am sure you will volunteer to undertake a study of Canon law. When you find something which contradicts what multiple people who have studied Canon law such as Brother JR and ByzCath have already stated, be sure to bring it back. I have come to trust the opinion of these two men on things such as this over the course of scores of discussions where things like this have come up.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

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.

Indeed, Brother, indeed. Let us instead pray for more priests, more masses, and more holiness.

Ave Maria, gratia plena…

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

Here is what UE has to say:

All priests, whether secular or religious, can celebrate the EF in private without needing permission from any superior. Seems pretty clear to me.

• PAX

No it’s not that clear. We don’t do law that way in the Church. You have to take SP along with the rule and constitutions of the religious institute. If the rule or constitutions prohibit it, UE does not override it. Only a direct intervention by the pope can override a rule or constitution. This requires a Papal Bull addressed to the specific religious order, mentioning the specific rule. This has always been done this way.

Ask the Carmelites. Pope Innocent wanted to make some changes in religious life of his day. There were conflicts with the Carmelite tradition. He had to write the addendums specifically for the Carmelites to be added to their statutes. A blanket statement about religious does not do it.

Why not? Because the rule of a religious institute is sealed by a previous pope. The constitutions of the institute are promulgated by the pope. If the pope is going to change the rule, he has to break the seal, insert the change and reseal the rule. If he wants to change the constitution, he has to insert the amendment and promulgate the constitution with its changes.

The statement in UE carries not juridical weight in those orders where the constitution or the rule written by the founder say the contrary. UE is neither Canon Law, nor a rule, nor a constitution. Therefore, it does not carry that kind of authority. As I said, UE was a follow up to SP. And SP is very clear about the major superiors and the common law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The statement in UE carries not juridical weight in those orders where the constitution or the rule written by the founder say the contrary. UE is neither Canon Law, nor a rule, nor a constitution. Therefore, it does not carry that kind of authority. As I said, UE was a follow up to SP. And SP is very clear about the major superiors and the common law.

Ok, I’ll go with you. Just to be clear, though, the reference in SP to major superiors and common law is directed towards communal or conventual masses, not private masses. Private masses are covered in article 2, communal in 3:

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

Art. 3. Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or “community” celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.

• PAX

 

[jwinch2]

No it’s not that clear. We don’t do law that way in the Church. You have to take SP along with the rule and constitutions of the religious institute. If the rule or constitutions prohibit it, UE does not override it. Only a direct intervention by the pope can override a rule or constitution. This requires a Papal Bull addressed to the specific religious order, mentioning the specific rule. This has always been done this way.

Ask the Carmelites. Pope Innocent wanted to make some changes in religious life of his day. There were conflicts with the Carmelite tradition. He had to write the addendums specifically for the Carmelites to be added to their statutes. A blanket statement about religious does not do it.

Why not? Because the rule of a religious institute is sealed by a previous pope. The constitutions of the institute are promulgated by the pope. If the pope is going to change the rule, he has to break the seal, insert the change and reseal the rule. If he wants to change the constitution, he has to insert the amendment and promulgate the constitution with its changes.

The statement in UE carries not juridical weight in those orders where the constitution or the rule written by the founder say the contrary. UE is neither Canon Law, nor a rule, nor a constitution. Therefore, it does not carry that kind of authority. As I said, UE was a follow up to SP. And SP is very clear about the major superiors and the common law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

You may wish to consider adding into your signature block: “REGARDLESS OF THE DISCUSSION AT HAND, EXEMPT RELIGIOUS ARE NOT THE SAME” in really large letters and in an obnoxious color.

Just a thought…

 

[JReducation]

I believe that Melchior, Jwinch and Br.David had hit the nail on the head that many people are missing.

The Holy Father said that religious priests can use the EF in private without having to ask for permission.

However, he did not say, “Religious priests can celebrate private masses without permission.”

In some orders, that decision is reserved for the superior of the house. As I said above, the pope would have to go into everyone of those constitutions and rules and amend them one by one, because either he or his predecessor signed off on them. He cannot amend then without his signature. They would have no legal force.

Since that has not happened, superiors in some communities still have the authority to deny permission for private masses. A bishop does not have that authority, because his men are not consecrated to obey him in this way.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TimothyH]

You assume that the “if/then” of private masses is in UE. I do not see it there. Instead, I see very clearly stated in unambiguous terms that any qualified priest, religious or secular, can offer a private mass in the EF without needing any permission from anyone. If the Holy Father meant to restrict the offering of private masses in the EF, I am certain such things would have been stated as it goes against the clear understanding of the words on the paper.

• PAX

I think you may have an incorrect view of what it means to be a consecrated religious priest. First and foremost they are brothers, not priests, who are vowed to obey the superior under penalty of sin. They are priests only incidental to them being brothers and to being sons of the Abbot whom they obey as if he were Christ. A religious priest vowed to obedience under penalty of sin will do exactly what his superior tells him. Even if he were to say the EF in private, or even the OF, if his superior tells him to stop, he stops. To this he is vowed - strict obedience. He does not assert himself, but submits himself. Strict obedience is one of the defining characteristics of religious, priests or otherwise. .

I think this begs the question of why or how a consecrated religious priests would be saying private Mass anyway. A Benedictine or Cistercian Monk doesn’t just say Mass in his cell or walk into the Abbey Church and say a private Mass whenever he wants. These are highly structured religious communities with strict rules. A Cistercian brother who is also a priest doesn’t keep unconsecrated hosts with him in his cell. He doesn’t grab a chalice and walk over to the retreat house or gift shop and start saying Mass.

Mass in a religious community is first and foremost a service the priest provides for his Brothers, and the Abbot knows when, for whom, and in what form the priests in his community are celebrating Mass and the circumstances around all Masses that are celebrated. The Abbot is obeyed as if he is Christ, and if the Abbot says stop, the brother stops. He doesn’t go running to the Vatican website to check the documents, nor would he dare challenge his Abbot if the decision were final.

-Tim-

 

[John_of_Patmos]

If the SSPX become regular, and they agree with the pope, then could one attend their masses?
I’m holding my breath waiting for an announcement fro the vaticannpatrol:…

 

[1AugustSon7]

Brother is not suggesting that a priest would deliberately invalidate a Mass. ***He is suggesting that a conscious perception on the part of the priest that the EF of the Mass is not spiritually fulfilling to them could, in some rare cases, potentially cause a subconscious lack of intent. The Church is not willing to take that chance. ***

I have already demonstrated this assertion to be illegitimate and false: it would not jeopardize validity.

We are not bound to read hearts and minds: any Mass could be argued (if this principle had any validity) to have been potentially invalid because of something occult about the priest. We would constantly live in fear of being idolators. Even occult heretics can offer valid Masses, as I proved with the example of the heresiarch, Nestorius: I believe it is even possible for manifest heretics to offer valid Masses. Now surely if anyone has a defective intention, as you would define it, then heretics do; nonetheless, they can offer valid Masses, at least theoretically, just as they can validly baptize.

“Insufficient spiritual satisfaction” cannot, of itself, invalidate a Mass: imagine the mess we’d be in if it could! We’d have to poll the amount of “spiritual satisfaction” our priests get out of saying Mass and - if such were the case - how would we know exactly how much “satisfaction” would be sufficient to ensure validity?

In addition, as Brother JR also pointed out the Church must be very careful to focus on the spiritual fulfillment of the clergy.

In all my years of study, I have never heard of people being overly concerned about a priest’s “spiritual fulfillment”. Rather, it should be obvious that any Catholic Mass is inherently capable of being satisfactorily “spiritually satisfying” in the objective order: the fault cannot be the Mass, but rather lies with the priest in such an instance.

If priests are not be nurtured spiritually in the Mass, this will have a ripple effect outside of the Mass. As already noted, one cannot give something they do not have.

The spiritual fervour of priests certainly is important, but it has no bearing on validity as such.

No. This whole discussion generated in relation to offering the EF of the Mass and why it is not always available. Please go back and read the entire thread as in coming late to the discussion, you appear to have missed that this is an essential part of the topic at hand.

No, I entered in to correct a specific and serious error as such. The consequences of believing it I earlier alluded to when I referenced those poor folks who fancy that heretics can’t administer the sacraments validly and from excessive scrupulosity think that just about all priests today are heretics. As I have to repeat again, we are not bound to read hearts and minds. We are to judge of what is before us as such: a disgruntled, distracted or annoyed priest might say Mass badly, but he does not necessarily invalidate it simply because he might rather be at home eating Doritos and watching Oprah (and if such was the case, how could you know?).

A secular/diocesan priest can be ordered to say the OF of the Mass as that is part of the normal function but they cannot be ordered to say the EF.

Yes, a priest can be ordered to say Mass, and this of itself does not threaten the validity of the Mass.

 

[JReducation]

I think you may have an incorrect view of what it means to be a consecrated religious priest. First and foremost they are brothers, not priests, who are vowed to obey the superior under penalty of sin. They are priests only incidental to them being brothers and to being sons of the Abbot whom they obey as if he were Christ. A religious priest vowed to obedience under penalty of sin will do exactly what his superior tells him. Even if he were to say the EF in private, or even the OF, if his superior tells him to stop, he stops. To this he is vowed - strict obedience. He does not assert himself, but submits himself. Strict obedience is one of the defining characteristics of religious, priests or otherwise. .

I think this begs the question of why or how a consecrated religious priests would be saying private Mass anyway. A Benedictine or Cistercian Monk doesn’t just say Mass in his cell or walk into the Abbey Church and say a private Mass whenever he wants. These are highly structured religious communities with strict rules. A Cistercian brother who is also a priest doesn’t keep unconsecrated hosts with him in his cell. He doesn’t grab a chalice and walk over to the retreat house or gift shop and start saying Mass.

Mass in a religious community is first and foremost a service the priest provides for his Brothers, and the Abbot knows when, for whom, and in what form the priests in his community are celebrating Mass and the circumstances around all Masses that are celebrated. The Abbot is obeyed as if he is Christ, and if the Abbot says stop, the brother stops. He doesn’t go running to the Vatican website to check the documents, nor would he dare challenge his Abbot if the decision were final.

-Tim-

That’s right. Superiors always have the option to ban private masses. That would settle the EF/OF discussion right there.

As I said before, the Holy Father spoke in a deliberately nuanced way in SP. He gives permission to use the form, but does not give permission to say private masses. He does not overrule the superiors.

He did the same with the bishops. He encourages them to help find priests to celebrate the EF, but he does not overrule the bishops by demanding that they drop masses in order to accommodate the EF. The bishops retain control over that part.

In both cases. the superiors and the bishops are protected by law. The Holy Father simply gave them the freedom to include the EF and the encouragement to be attentive and sensitive to the people who ask for the EF.

He did not command them to do the impossible or to violate their own rules, in the case of religious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[jwinch2]

If the SSPX become regular, and they agree with the pope, then could one attend their masses?

That is the idea!

I’m holding my breath waiting for an announcement fro the vaticannpatrol:…

As are many. I think that pretty much everyone is ready for this situation to be normalized so that we can move on. I know I am.

Heck, the moderation staff at CAF might throw a party just because they don’t have to deal with these threads anymore!

Peace,

Jason

 

[ProVobis]

If the SSPX become regular, and they agree with the pope, then could one attend their masses?

Is this a trick question?

 

[1AugustSon7]

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.

This is circular reasoning. Theology informs canon law, and canon law must conform to theology: otherwise it would be lawful to, say, order punishments for people who confess Christ or any number of other, totally manifest absurdities. The strictest laws of the Church touch upon theology directly; e.g., anathemas or automatic excommunications, etc., though in truth such things are done by God (Divine Law); nonetheless, the Church of course recognizes these necessary theological principles in her ecclesiastical law.

Regardless, priests can be obliged to say Mass and we don’t ever have to worry about the validity of such Masses; at least certainly not for reasons of intention. An occult heretic can still, at least theoretically, say a valid Mass; otherwise we would always be in fear of falling into idolatry, because we cannot read hearts or minds.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Heck, the moderation staff at CAF might throw a party just because they don’t have to deal with these threads anymore!

Peace,

Jason

Is this a trick question?

Nope.

 

[jwinch2]

I have already demonstrated this assertion to be illegitimate and false

Believe what you like.

 

[TimothyH]

Heck, the moderation staff at CAF might throw a party just because they don’t have to deal with these threads anymore!

Peace,

Jason

That’s a good point. Maybe we could chip in and send the mods some monk beer or some of the monastery coffee or something.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

A secular/diocesan priest can be ordered to say the OF of the Mass as that is part of the normal function but they cannot be ordered to say the EF.

Not to worry. Since 99% (my estimate) of the world’s Roman rite priests say the OF, there should be more than enough priests to say the OF for those who wish it. Now whether it’s in the language or dialect that they want it or whether the options used (EP, for example) is to their liking in is another matter.

 

[jwinch2]

:ehh:

I have already demonstrated this assertion to be illegitimate and false

Perhaps to yourself, but not to me.

 

[JReducation]

I have already demonstrated this assertion to be illegitimate and false: it would not jeopardize validity.

No my friend, you have not proven it. I’m holding the Modus Procedendi. I’ll paraphrase it, because it’s very long. In accord with tradition, a bishop or a superior can assign any validly ordained priest to celebrate the sacraments. That priest has the duty to comply, if the assignment is reasonable and in accordance with the law and his assignment. And then it goes on and on about what is and is not reasonable. It is inconsistent with tradition to mandate a priest to celebrate the sacraments. Then it goes on and on to say how every priest should be eager to celebrate the sacraments.

The constitutions of my community say: “While the superior has the authority to withhold permission to celebrate mass, from any cleric, for just cause [it leaves it up to the superior to define just cause], he does not have the authority to command a cleric to celebrate the mass. The celebration of the sacred mysteries must be freely undertaken by the cleric.”

The Church does not give us the authority to make such commands. We can assign, but we cannot demand.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV