Summorum Pontificum..Does it apply to the SSPX?

[Rich_C]

Here is the claim, above.
The proof of which remains…

OK, that blog got boring so I’m back.

I see you’re back to saying fact aren’t facts, and proof isn’t proof. None of which you back with more than your opinion.

Gee, why am I not convinced?

 

[Rich_C]

Read the quotes above in posts 123 and 124.
I asked for the proof that the TLM was banned “from the Pope on down”.
No Pope ever made such a statement.
One would think a traditional Catholic would agree with this. I know my parents would have. As it proved liberals to be ones making the false statements back then.
The fact that, 40 years later, traditionalists are blaming the Pope, shows me a shifting in philosophy since then.

I just said that Pope Paul VI led by example in refusing to allow the TLM when it was requested of him. Whether or not someone acknowledges this historical fact after learning it reflects on their reasonableness, not their ideology.

I have no agenda.

 

[pnewton]

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.

I will try and find the Edward Peters article on it. I do not know if the issue has beed addressed whether confirmation is valid if performed by one of the three bishops. What I will never understand is why anyone would take a chance with validity just to be done by the SSPX.

 

[pnewton]

I’ll have to find a good free newspaper archive. I don’t know of any.

The point is: it was de facto banned, even if you won’t admit it.

Perhaps it is a problem with the word “ban”. Since a ban is not only a stopage, but a barring of an action, there really is no such thing as a “de facto ban.” There is not ban on 8-track tapes, yet across the country they are seldom seen.

 

[pnewton]

I just said that Pope Paul VI led by example in refusing to allow the TLM when it was requested of him.

I do not know about this. I think most priest are well aware that that what the Holy Father** says** is what they must do. What the Holy Father** does** only affects him. When Pope Benedict started giving communion only on the tongue, did all priests everywhere adopt this practice?

 

[Rich_C]

Perhaps it is a problem with the word “ban”. Since a ban is not only a stopage, but a barring of an action, there really is no such thing as a “de facto ban.” There is not ban on 8-track tapes, yet across the country they are seldom seen.

I’m to a better term. Actually, I think I asked for one twice.

Your 8-track example isn’t a good analogy, IMO though because its disappearence was an organic development due to lack of demand.

For quick consumer examples, I would the lightbulb would be a better one. Certainly some people still prefer Incandescent lightbulbs but everyone is switching to the newfangled ones because of industry changes pushed by the gov’t.

OK, not a perfect analogy either but I have lightbulbs on the brain. Long story.

 

[Rich_C]

I do not know about this. I think most priest are well aware that that what the Holy Father** says** is what they must do. What the Holy Father** does** only affects him. When Pope Benedict started giving communion only on the tongue, did all priests everywhere adopt this practice?

If you think “leading by example” wouldn’t have put enough pressure on priests to (almost universally) stop saying the TLM, then it sounds like you’re suggesting even stronger pressure must have been put on them…like, what?

 

[JReducation]

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?

A bishop cannot command anything that is extraordinary. There again is where one runs into the conflict with the word “extraordinary”. That which is extraordinary is never the norm.

Bishops cannot command diocesan priests to do the extraordinary, they do not have that kind of authority over diocesan priests. Bishops can only command what it normative. If the law explicitly said that the faithful have the right to have the EF, then it would be within the authority of the bishop to command that the rights of the faithful be honored. That’s not what SP says. It says that the priest can celebrate it, the faithful can ask for it and the bishop should make an effort to respond. The only one under the law is the bishop. That’s why this is so difficult to implement on a larger scale.

One must remember that a diocesan priest is not a religious. He does not make a vow of obedience. He makes a promise of obedience. This promise is limited only to that which is usual, customary and that which falls under ordinary pastoral care. A bishop cannot command that which is not required by law. A religious superior can command what is not required by law, but not a bishop. If there is no expressed law that binds a priest to celebrate the EF, than there can be no obligation to do it.

That’s why I call the language of SP dicey.

 

[devoutchristian]

A bishop cannot command anything that is extraordinary. There again is where one runs into the conflict with the word “extraordinary”. That which is extraordinary is never the norm.

Bishops cannot command diocesan priests to do the extraordinary, they do not have that kind of authority over diocesan priests. Bishops can only command what it normative. If the law explicitly said that the faithful have the right to have the EF, then it would be within the authority of the bishop to command that the rights of the faithful be honored. That’s not what SP says. It says that the priest can celebrate it, the faithful can ask for it and the bishop should make an effort to respond. The only one under the law is the bishop. That’s why this is so difficult to implement on a larger scale.

One must remember that a diocesan priest is not a religious. He does not make a vow of obedience. He makes a promise of obedience. This promise is limited only to that which is usual, customary and that which falls under ordinary pastoral care. A bishop cannot command that which is not required by law. A religious superior can command what is not required by law, but not a bishop. If there is no expressed law that binds a priest to celebrate the EF, than there can be no obligation to do it.

That’s why I call the language of SP dicey.

Nonsense. A bishop can command a priest to say Mass in the EF.

 

[pnewton]

For quick consumer examples, I would the lightbulb would be a better one. Certainly some people still prefer Incandescent lightbulbs but everyone is switching to the newfangled ones because of industry changes pushed by the gov’t.

OK, not a perfect analogy either but I have lightbulbs on the brain. Long story.

:idea:

I guess my point is a stopage is not a ban. “Ban” is a term often misused in the media whenever some library decides for any reason not to carry something or provide a service they think is needed. Not provideing the TLM is not a ban unless somewhere it was verbally proscribed.

 

[otjm]

Nonsense. A bishop can command a priest to say Mass in the EF.

Source, please?

 

[devoutchristian]

Source, please?

I’m simply stating that which we all agree to be the norm. JReducation is making a challenge to the authority of the bishop, he can provide a source.

 

[Boulder257]

I’m simply stating that which we all agree to be the norm. JReducation is making a challenge to the authority of the bishop, he can provide a source.

Don’t worry, I’m pretty sure his little fingers are typing furiously as we speak, lol.

 

[Rich_C]

:idea:

I guess my point is a stopage is not a ban. “Ban” is a term often misused in the media whenever some library decides for any reason not to carry something or provide a service they think is needed. Not provideing the TLM is not a ban unless somewhere it was verbally proscribed.

Haha, so the lowest common denominator of agreement on CAF is that the Church “universally stopped providing the TLM?”

OK, I’ll take what I can get.

LOL.

 

[JReducation]

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

Not really. That would have to happen by a change in the law. Right now, as the law stands, the Tridentine is the extraordinary and the Pauline is the ordinary.

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

Canon law does not give principles. Canon law uses principles. Principles are a logic that we use to make law in the Church and in religious communities. Think of them as unwritten rules as you would have in any other discipline, including civil law.

What word would you use instead of banned?

I think that the problem you folks are having is that you’re not thinking like bishops and religious superiors. To us, ban is one thing. It has to be explicitly stated. However, as superior can prohibit something without banning it. Which means that it will not happen under my watch, but it can happen under someone else’s watch, because the thing that I’m prohibiting it not illegal. What is illegal is disobedience.

Nonsense. A bishop can command a priest to say Mass in the EF.

First of all, back off. The term “nonsense” is very rude. Secondly, I know exactly what I’m talking about. I’m a religious superior and I work for a diocese; therefore, I deal with bishops and law 24/7.

A bishop cannot command that which is out of the ordinary or that which is unnecessary. He is not a religious superior and diocesan priests are not religious. His authority is limited to what is the norm, hence the title The Ordinary of the Diocese. He has ordinary jurisdiction over his diocese. He can command whatever the law ordinarily requires of the faithful and the clergy.

I’m simply stating that which we all agree to be the norm. JReducation is making a challenge to the authority of the bishop, he can provide a source.

Where is my challenge?

 

[otjm]

I’m simply stating that which we all agree to be the norm. JReducation is making a challenge to the authority of the bishop, he can provide a source.

anyone who agrees to a norm, when the matter is of Canon law, is talking opinion, not fact. I believe Bro. JR is better trained in Canon law than most of us.

I looked at SP; using three different translations of it, and found the following:

Art. 5 § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor **should willingly accept **their requests to celebrate the Mass

Art. 5 § 1 In parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably, let the pastor **willingly accede to **their requests for the celebration of the Holy Mass

Art. 5, § 1. In parishes, where there is stably present a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition, let the pastor **willingly receive **their petitions that Mass be celebrated

In order, the first is the translation from the Holy See; the second from the USCCB; the third is WDTPRS. As to the bishop, same order:

Art. 7 The bishop **is strongly requested **to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

Art. 7 The Bishop** is earnestly requested **to grant their desire. If he cannot provide for this kind of celebration, let the matter be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Art. 7 The Bishop **is strenuously asked **that he graciously grant their desire. If does not want to provide for a celebration of this kind, let the matter be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

Art. 5, Section 1 does not say that the pastor will, shall, must, or any other command language, say the EF. Bold is mine.

Also with the bishop; it is hortatory language; it does not say he shall make a priest say the Mass. Again, bold mine.

Obviously, if he can command a priest to say the Mass, then the language after that is superfluous and unnecessary. If, however, he cannot command a priest to say the Mass, then the language after that has meaning.

Obtained from Fr. Z’s blog; I provided the three as he sets them out, less someone say that a single translation is too apt to be skewed by the translator.

 

[10thCrusader]

OK, everyone has been asking about the reference for the whether the Catholic Faithful may fulfill their Sunday Obligation by attending a Chapel of the SSPX. Because this question has gone back and forth a few times, and there are still open questions that the Holy See has not yet addressed, the answer is not tied up neatly in any single document or letter.

I did finally found a page that summed up the issues of what sacraments were valid and invalid in SSPX. This page covers the direction of Cardinal Castrillon, who is the head of the Pontifical Commission for Ecclesia Dei (PCED)

I will sum it up:
The SSPX is not in formal schism.

The Mass as celebrated by the SSPX priests is valid but licit with respect to the priests celebrating, but valid and licit with respect to those attending. (I told you it was complicated).

According to Cardinal Castrillon, the Catholic Faithful my fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending the Mass at a SSPX chapel, “if done solely out of devotion to the Church’s Latin liturgical tradition and not to separate one’s self from communion with one’s diocesan Ordinary or local pastor.”

Which goes back to my conditions I mentioned before:

1. 
   *]There is no EF Mass provided in your area.
   *]You do not desire or support separation from the Holy Church or disobedience to the Holy See.
   
   Here is the link. There are a lot of other issues addressed by this page, so you kind of have to hunt around the page for it.
   wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/guest-contribution-qa-with-the-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/
   
   As I said before, the situation is a little complicated, and to complicate it further, there have been some chapels, claiming to be SSPX, but are not. Those chapels are definitely in schism, and may be where some people have heard that the SSPX is in schism. You may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending an verified SSPX chapel, but any other group (Sedevacantists, etc.) is definitely illicit and possibly invalid.
   
   I hope this clears things up (but probably not).

 

[hudson]

A bishop cannot command anything that is extraordinary. There again is where one runs into the conflict with the word “extraordinary”. That which is extraordinary is never the norm.

Bishops cannot command diocesan priests to do the extraordinary, they do not have that kind of authority over diocesan priests. Bishops can only command what it normative. If the law explicitly said that the faithful have the right to have the EF, then it would be within the authority of the bishop to command that the rights of the faithful be honored. That’s not what SP says. It says that the priest can celebrate it, the faithful can ask for it and the bishop should make an effort to respond. The only one under the law is the bishop. That’s why this is so difficult to implement on a larger scale.

One must remember that a diocesan priest is not a religious. He does not make a vow of obedience. He makes a promise of obedience. This promise is limited only to that which is usual, customary and that which falls under ordinary pastoral care. A bishop cannot command that which is not required by law. A religious superior can command what is not required by law, but not a bishop. If there is no expressed law that binds a priest to celebrate the EF, than there can be no obligation to do it.

That’s why I call the language of SP dicey.

Right, now please show me in Canon Law or anywhere where it states a Bishop can command a diocesan Priest to do the Ordinary but cannot command him to do the Extraordinary. I hear you saying this all of the time but I want to read it for myself. Thanks.

 

[hudson]

Source, please?

BrJr needs to provide a source for his argument. That is the start of all of this questioning. He makes these claims over and over and I want to see the documentation.

 

[hudson]

Not really. That would have to happen by a change in the law. Right now, as the law stands, the Tridentine is the extraordinary and the Pauline is the ordinary.

Canon law does not give principles. Canon law uses principles. Principles are a logic that we use to make law in the Church and in religious communities. Think of them as unwritten rules as you would have in any other discipline, including civil law.

I think that the problem you folks are having is that you’re not thinking like bishops and religious superiors. To us, ban is one thing. It has to be explicitly stated. However, as superior can prohibit something without banning it. Which means that it will not happen under my watch, but it can happen under someone else’s watch, because the thing that I’m prohibiting it not illegal. What is illegal is disobedience.

First of all, back off. The term “nonsense” is very rude. Secondly, I know exactly what I’m talking about. I’m a religious superior and I work for a diocese; therefore, I deal with bishops and law 24/7.

A bishop cannot command that which is out of the ordinary or that which is unnecessary. He is not a religious superior and diocesan priests are not religious. His authority is limited to what is the norm, hence the title The Ordinary of the Diocese. He has ordinary jurisdiction over his diocese. He can command whatever the law ordinarily requires of the faithful and the clergy.

Where is my challenge?

Not to be rude, but you provide lots of words without citations to back them up. Please provide citations when requested so we can learn where you come up with your opinion.