Summorum Pontificum..Does it apply to the SSPX?

[Armor_of_Light]

Here is where this gets dicey. There is a principle in law. Anything that is extraordinary ceases to be an obligation. That much is clear. If it is not an obligation, it is an option. In other words, the Church allows it, but she does not require it. Something that the Church allows, but does not require is not the same as a right. It begs the question. If it is not a right, then what is it?

Hmm.

Dicey indeed! I actually understand the point you are making.

If they are equal but different, then they both are rights. Like the Eastern rites are rights, right? Couldn’t resist!

 

[JReducation]

Hmm.

Dicey indeed! I actually understand the point you are making.

If they are equal but different, then they both are rights. Like the Eastern rites are rights, right? Couldn’t resist!

That was clever.

It’s very dicey. I guess one can say, “That SP grants us the right to request the EF.”

Yet, it does not oblige any priest to grant my request. This is where bishops get caught in the middle. Unlike religious superiors who can simply deny such a request, a diocesan bishop has to try to honor the request. But how does one honor a request when the “service provider” is not obliged to provide the service?

For example, in the diocese where I work, the seminarians are taught the EF. However, none of the newly ordained want to celebrate it and none of the older priests want to celebrate it regularly. There is nothing that the bishop can lawfully do to oblige them. If the layman has the right to make the request, but the clergy does not have an obligation to honor the request, what is the legal status of the EF?

Obviously it’s legal. That much is very clear thanks to SP. Obviously it’s not an obligation. That’s also clear. Yet, people have a right to ask for it and the bishops have an obligation to honor the request; but the same bishop cannot command any priest to celebrate the EF. Search me if I understand how the EF is a right as people claim that it is. I would say that one has the right to request it, not the right to get it.

 

[Melchior_1]

If they are equal but different, then they both are rights. Like the Eastern rites are rights, right? Couldn’t resist!

Someone eventually had to make this joke

I think the bad blood and confusion mostly stemmed from local implementation of the OF when it first got issued. Certain clergy said “the old ways have been banned” without it actually being so. Because perception can be greater than reality, because people said/acted like the EF was banned people thought “it be banned”.

The people who caused the tension and division would have done so anyway. If they didn’t latch onto the OF (radical liberals who wanted radical change) or the EF (radical trads who want to live in a bubble), they’d have found another way to cause trouble.

Which is why it is great that Benedict stepped in and clarified things years later with SP.

 

[JReducation]

Someone eventually had to make this joke

I think the bad blood and confusion mostly stemmed from local implementation of the OF when it first got issued. Certain clergy said “the old ways have been banned” without it actually being so. Because perception can be greater than reality, because people said/acted like the EF was banned people thought “it be banned”.

The people who caused the tension and division would have done so anyway. If they didn’t latch onto the OF (radical liberals who wanted radical change) or the EF (radical trads who want to live in a bubble), they’d have found another way to cause trouble.

Which is why it is great that Benedict stepped in and clarified things years later with SP.

While SP clarifies that the Tridentine form is still licit, it creates questions that were not there before.

How can people have a right to something that the priest has no obligation to provide?

How can bishops have an obligation to respond to the request for the EF, but not have the authority to command a priest to celebrate it?

A stable group that belongs to a parish run by a religious order finds a priest from that order who agrees to celebrate the EF for the group. The major superior can licitly withhold the permission without having to explain himself to anyone, not even to Rome. Does the stable group have a right in that parish? Obviously, the priest in that order does not have the right to celebrate it, only the right to ask.

The only clarification that SP really provides is that the Tridentine form was never abrogated and that a diocesan priest does not need permission to celebrate it, as long as there is no conflict with the parish. But it does raise other questions that I suppose will be answered in time or never, since the Church has no obligation to answer questions about anything other than dogma and morality.

 

[Melchior_1]

My son has the right for food. But I am under no obligation to give him what he wants.

He can ask certain foods, but if it’s going to cause constipation or other issues then I will deny him that food and give him something else.

I dunno, makes sense to me anyway.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

OK…it’s becoming a little clearer. I just don’t get how it could eventually end up on the chopping block with no insult to justice, with no explaination, when it was never abrogated. Something would have to be abandoned first, in order to be *brought back *.

Also…we’re not all bubble people! C’mon man…
The Traditional Mass benefits us, speaks to us, nurtures and strengthens us in order for us to carry out our mission in the world, not in a bubble. NO-goers I’m sure get the same uplifting spiritual benefits from the NO, and more power to 'em. See you in the trenches brother! That’s what I say!!

ONWARD!!! HOoooooo…

 

[Mrs_Sally]

My son has the right for food. But I am under no obligation to give him what he wants.

He can ask certain foods, but if it’s going to cause constipation or other issues then I will deny him that food and give him something else.

I dunno, makes sense to me anyway.

That’s a good analogy.

Giving your son beef stew (the OF) is fine - even if he asks for chicken noodle soup (the EF) which he likes better. Both meals are healthy, both meals are even the same ‘kind’ (soup), but if you don’t have chicken noodle soup in the house, there is nothing that says you have to run out to the store or go kill a chicken.

 

[Rich_C]

While SP clarifies that the Tridentine form is still licit, it creates questions that were not there before.

How can people have a right to something that the priest has no obligation to provide?

How can bishops have an obligation to respond to the request for the EF, but not have the authority to command a priest to celebrate it?

A stable group that belongs to a parish run by a religious order finds a priest from that order who agrees to celebrate the EF for the group. The major superior can licitly withhold the permission without having to explain himself to anyone, not even to Rome. Does the stable group have a right in that parish? Obviously, the priest in that order does not have the right to celebrate it, only the right to ask.

The only clarification that SP really provides is that the Tridentine form was never abrogated and that a diocesan priest does not need permission to celebrate it, as long as there is no conflict with the parish. But it does raise other questions that I suppose will be answered in time or never, since the Church has no obligation to answer questions about anything other than dogma and morality.

Does this apply in reverse?

Let’s say a new parish is erected and its pastor only wishes to offer the TLM. He won’t be displacing any OF Masses, because the parish is just starting up. He doesn’t need permission from the bishop.

But then a “stable group” requests the OF Mass, but the priest doesn’t want to offer it. Can the bishop make him do it, and is there any written law that you could show to support this?

 

[Armor_of_Light]

That’s a good analogy.

Giving your son beef stew (the OF) is fine - even if he asks for chicken noodle soup (the EF) which he likes better. Both meals are healthy, both meals are even the same ‘kind’ (soup), but if you don’t have chicken noodle soup in the house, there is nothing that says you have to run out to the store or go kill a chicken.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve run to the store for special ingredients! Interesting you mention that…I do it out of love for my family. A small thing to offer up, yes. I just hope they all remember someday!

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I would think the pastor would have to offer it because it is the ordinary form. I don’t know that any priest can refuse to say the OF. I am sure someone more knowledgable will correct that statement if it is wrong.

 

[hudson]

Since the SSPX cannot licitly celebrate Mass, no instruction would apply to them anyway. But no, they can not licitly of validly confirm, as *no *priest can without permission from the bishop, except the case of one who is near to death.

Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confir-mation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament** validly**.

Canon 882 is in reference to the Bishop granting of authority to a Priest the ability to confer the Sacrament of confirmation. It says no more than that. What it does say is that a Bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation and that a priest only has the ability to minister Confirmation if given that ability by a Bishop. The question is does a validly ordained Bishop that is not in full communion with the Church have the authority to validly Confirm. On that question to my knowledge Canon Law is silent. The fact that the SSPX Bishops are valid Bishops leads me to believe that Canon 882 affirms that their Confirmations indeed would be valid.

 

[GloriaMaria]

That’s a good analogy.

Giving your son beef stew (the OF) is fine - even if he asks for chicken noodle soup (the EF) which he likes better. Both meals are healthy, both meals are even the same ‘kind’ (soup), but if you don’t have chicken noodle soup in the house, there is nothing that says you have to run out to the store or go kill a chicken.

The problem with the SSPX is that they say that the beef stew (OF) is poisonous, and you should never feed it to your child. They state (the SSPX) that if you have no chicken noodle soup available, then you should not feed your child anything at all (ie - stay home on Sunday rather than go to the OF Mass). Furthermore, they state that if you have chicken noodle soup which is not the name brand (EF Mass offered by SSPX or affilates) and you only have *generic *chicken noodle soup (EF diocesan Mass or FFSP etc…) then you should still not feed your child at all, because one day someone will slip poison into that soup.

 

[hudson]

Pope Benedict was very astute when he applied the term “extraordinary” to the Tridentine form. By doing so, he sends a message to bishops, religious superiors, superiors of societies and to the curia that the celebration of the EF is a privilege, not a right. Anything that is extraordinary is not the norm. Therefore, it can be taken away at any time without violating justice like any other privilege.

This applies as well to the Novus Ordo. The Ordinary could easily find itself as the Extraordinary and the Extraordinary as the Ordinary.

 

[hudson]

Here is where this gets dicey. There is a principle in law. Anything that is extraordinary ceases to be an obligation. That much is clear. If it is not an obligation, it is an option. In other words, the Church allows it, but she does not require it. Something that the Church allows, but does not require is not the same as a right. It begs the question. If it is not a right, then what is it?

Could you point out where in Canon Law this principle can be found?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

The problem with the SSPX is that they say that the beef stew (OF) is poisonous, and you should never feed it to your child. They state (the SSPX) that if you have no chicken noodle soup available, then you should not feed your child anything at all (ie - stay home on Sunday rather than go to the OF Mass). Furthermore, they state that if you have chicken noodle soup which is not the name brand (EF Mass offered by SSPX or affilates) and you only have *generic *chicken noodle soup (EF diocesan Mass or FFSP etc…) then you should still not feed your child at all, because one day someone will slip poison into that soup.

Wow- this analogy is really driving home the point!

And so do we have folks whose children are pale and stunted - or who go looking for at least donuts (Evangelical Protestant) so they can have something to eat?

 

[hudson]

That was clever.

It’s very dicey. I guess one can say, “That SP grants us the right to request the EF.”

Yet, it does not oblige any priest to grant my request. This is where bishops get caught in the middle. Unlike religious superiors who can simply deny such a request, a diocesan bishop has to try to honor the request. But how does one honor a request when the “service provider” is not obliged to provide the service?

For example, in the diocese where I work, the seminarians are taught the EF. However, none of the newly ordained want to celebrate it and none of the older priests want to celebrate it regularly. There is nothing that the bishop can lawfully do to oblige them. If the layman has the right to make the request, but the clergy does not have an obligation to honor the request, what is the legal status of the EF?

Obviously it’s legal. That much is very clear thanks to SP. Obviously it’s not an obligation. That’s also clear. Yet, people have a right to ask for it and the bishops have an obligation to honor the request; but the same bishop cannot command any priest to celebrate the EF. Search me if I understand how the EF is a right as people claim that it is. I would say that one has the right to request it, not the right to get it.

I would also be curious to know where it is said that Diocesan Priest do not have an obligation to honor a request from their Bishop. I have heard you make this argument on several occasions, but I would really be interested to know the basis for it. Are you stating that if a Bishop commands a Priest that knows how to say the EF to do it, the Diocesan Priest can say no? What prevents a Bishop from commanding a Diocesan Priest to do this? What allows a Diocesan Priest the ability to tell his Bishop no?

 

[hudson]

My son has the right for food. But I am under no obligation to give him what he wants.

He can ask certain foods, but if it’s going to cause constipation or other issues then I will deny him that food and give him something else.

I dunno, makes sense to me anyway.

If he is a child he has a “right” to food or you will be imprisoned for child endangerment. Some of us need to be fed the TLM because the NO does not feed our spiritual lives. We are children of the Church so the analogy fits.

 

[Melchior_1]

OK…it’s becoming a little clearer. I just don’t get how it could eventually end up on the chopping block with no insult to justice, with no explaination, when it was never abrogated. Something would have to be abandoned first, in order to be *brought back *.

Again, people took a hold of a situation to suit their own ends. Was it banned or abrogated? No, but people can use that kind of language and verbage to suit what they wanted - change in Church doctrine. These people would have found any way to do this mind you, so I wouldn’t blame the OF or Vatican II for that (not saying you are, of course! )

 

[ProVobis]

They reject the authority of the hierarchy of the church, and ignore the rules of the church, and establish parishes that do not answer to local bishops within those bishops’ sees…

Schismatic acts aside, perhaps in a strange way it’s their ability of knowing how and where to market the EF that’s become their problem?

If they had poor attendance, would the subject of the FSSPX even be discussed?

 

[Rich_C]

Again, people took a hold of a situation to suit their own ends. Was it banned or abrogated? No, but people can use that kind of language and verbage to suit what they wanted - change in Church doctrine. These people would have found any way to do this mind you, so I wouldn’t blame the OF or Vatican II for that (not saying you are, of course! )

The people you’re speaking of include Pope Paul VI and many bishops, of course.

That’s what makes the issue of the Tridentine Mass’ status so confusing.