Summorum Pontificum..Does it apply to the SSPX?

[devoutchristian]

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.

I’ll trust the judgment of Bishop Taylor more than that of someone on an Internet forum.

arkansas-catholic.org/news/article/2571/Loving-Latin-with-new-Mass-in-northwest-

Where is my challenge?

The bishop is normally allowed to issue commands to his diocesan priests, you denied that he could issue a certain command, so the burden of proof is on you.

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).

1. 
   You still don’t know what you’re talking about. SSPX masses are valid, but illicit with respect to the celebrant.
   

   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.

   He has a habit of doing that.

 

[hudson]

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.

This does not address the question at hand. Does a Bishop not have the authority to command a diocesan Priest to say the EF as BrJr says.

 

[Aramis]

What are you talking about? The proof is that no licit TLM was allowed for over 10 years in the 70’s to early to mid 80’s. Provide us proof of some approved TLM’s that were being permitted. It was never formally abrogated that is fact, but it was de facto banned and any Priest caught saying it was punished to the point of dismissal. You ask for proof and I gave you news stories from the 70s and 80s and I can produce hundreds more just like it. I cannot find one news story about the TLM being permitted.

There is a guiding principle in liturgistics: The current promulgated version is to be used if available; older editions only if the current isn’t available due to poverty, inaccessibility, or disability.

The non-abrogation of the Trent missal was irrelevant - a new set of rubrics had been legitimately promulgated in 1969, 1974 in English, and by the standard principles, all public masses should then have switched. And almost universally, they did. Exceptions were granted in certain cases… Like the SSPX, a diocesan-right priestly societ, who were granted permission from their chartering diocesan bishop to use the 1962 missal publicly. (But that permission, and their charter and faculties, were pulled in the mid 70’s. Well before the excommunication.)

And the only reason the transitional was continued past 1969 was the call from the council for use of the vernacular - and the vernacular mass was the transitional until 1974 for English.

Still, I remember latin masses as a child - and I was born AFTER the promulgation of the Latin OF.

 

[JustaServant]

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.

Bold mine.
Which was my point.
Would a better word for us layman to use be “guidance”? As in “parental guidance”?
Extremism tends to go for polarizing terminology (like ‘banned’) that implies wickedness, when no wickedness was intended.

 

[JustaServant]

He has a habit of doing that.

He answered your question.
You just don’t want to accept the answer.

 

[devoutchristian]

He answered your question.
You just don’t want to accept the answer.

No he didn’t.

 

[JustaServant]

No he didn’t.

Yes he did.

 

[devoutchristian]

Yes he did.

Where?

 

[JustaServant]

Where?

Re-read his post.

 

[devoutchristian]

Re-read his post.

He repeated what he had been saying. He cited no source.

 

[JustaServant]

First of all, back off.

I backed away three feet from the computer when I read that!!

 

[Mike30]

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.

As far as the Pastor. Should willing accept their petitions. That would indicate they can ask and he should let them ask.

Should willingly accede to. That would indicate that he is to accomodate them in their request.
Accede 1.Assent or agree to a demand, request, or treaty

Should wiilingly receive. Again, that would indicate only allowing them make the request.

Some confusion however on the second translation which differs substantially from the first and third. It seems to say that the Pastor should allow the Mass to be celebrated.

On to the Bishop. Strongly requested, earnestly requested and strenuously asked, all mean the exact same thing.

If he doesn’t want to grant the request, he doesn’t have to and the buck gets passed to Ecclesia Dei…

 

[devoutchristian]

As far as the Pastor. Should willing accept their petitions. That would indicate they can ask and he should let them ask.

Should willingly accede to. That would indicate that he is to accomodate them in their request.
Accede 1.Assent or agree to a demand, request, or treaty

Should wiilingly receive. Again, that would indicate only allowing them make the request.

Some confusion however on the second translation which differes substantially from the first and third. It seems to say that the Pastor should allow the Mass to be celebrated.

On to the Bishop. Strongly requested, earnestly requested and strenuously asked, all mean the exact same thing.

If he doesn’t want to grant the request, he doesn’t have to and the buck gets passed to Ecclesia Dei…

Which tells us nothing about the authority that he has to give commands to priests.

 

[ProVobis]

And the only reason the transitional was continued past 1969 was the call from the council for use of the vernacular

It was always of deep interest to me how quickly we went from Veterum Sapientia, an apostolic constitution which called for non-vernacular language, to a council (called by the same Pope) calling for vernacular, and ending up with no Latin within 10 years.

 

[otjm]

I’ll trust the judgment of Bishop Taylor more than that of someone on an Internet forum.

arkansas-catholic.org/news/article/2571/Loving-Latin-with-new-Mass-in-northwest-.

The only quote in your citation to the bishop is: ““I’m growing into it,” Father Hart said. “I love the Mass (but) I was more than a little surprised when the Friday before Palm Sunday 2010,” Bishop Anthony B. Taylor told him his next assignment would include adding the Latin Mass.”

That does not say he commanded him to say the EF; for all you know, the bishop may have polled his priests to see a) who might be competent; and b) who might be willing. In other words, your proof is no stronger than Bro. JR’s on the face of them.

We have had a Canon lawyer as a member; I don’t know if he still is on the forum but I will see if I can find him and ask the question.

 

[ProVobis]

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

LOL. It gives a whole new meaning to hotkeys.

 

[otjm]

As far as the Pastor. Should willing accept their petitions. That would indicate they can ask and he should let them ask.

Should willingly accede to. That would indicate that he is to accomodate them in their request.
Accede 1.Assent or agree to a demand, request, or treaty

Should wiilingly receive. Again, that would indicate only allowing them make the request.

Some confusion however on the second translation which differs substantially from the first and third. It seems to say that the Pastor should allow the Mass to be celebrated.

On to the Bishop. Strongly requested, earnestly requested and strenuously asked, all mean the exact same thing.

If he doesn’t want to grant the request, he doesn’t have to and the buck gets passed to Ecclesia Dei…

That certainly appears to be what SP says. Then the other question, which Bro. JR has alluded to is the issue of the authority of the bishop over his priests. I have contacted the Canon lawyer, but it looks like he is no longer active on the forum. Perhaps he may answer my query.

 

[devoutchristian]

The only quote in your citation to the bishop is: ““I’m growing into it,” Father Hart said. “I love the Mass (but) I was more than a little surprised when the Friday before Palm Sunday 2010,” Bishop Anthony B. Taylor told him his next assignment would include adding the Latin Mass.”

That does not say he commanded him to say the EF; for all you know, the bishop may have polled his priests to see a) who might be competent; and b) who might be willing. In other words, your proof is no stronger than Bro. JR’s on the face of them.

We have had a Canon lawyer as a member; I don’t know if he still is on the forum but I will see if I can find him and ask the question.

“Told him his next assignment” doesn’t exactly equal “requested that he”. Besides, I live in Arkansas and I don’t recall any poll being taken.

 

[Mike30]

That certainly appears to be what SP says. Then the other question, which Bro. JR has alluded to is the issue of the authority of the bishop over his priests. I have contacted the Canon lawyer, but it looks like he is no longer active on the forum. Perhaps he may answer my query.

I have had two FSSP Priests in different Dioceses tell me that if their Bishop,“requests” them to perform an Ordinary Form Mass, they should consider the request as an order, just like in the military, and celebrate the Ordinary Form as directed. They are all apparently trained in how to celebrate one properly.

I haven’t spoken to a Diocesan Priest about them being ordered to perform an Extraordinary Form Mass, but I would think given the relative nature of the two rites, Ordinary vs Extraordinary, that ordering them to celebrate an Extraordinary Form Mass would not be proper.

Now on the flip side, I really can’t imagine many Bishops ordering their Priests to perform Extraordinary Form Masses or even considering such a thing.

 

[Mike30]

That certainly appears to be what SP says. Then the other question, which Bro. JR has alluded to is the issue of the authority of the bishop over his priests. I have contacted the Canon lawyer, but it looks like he is no longer active on the forum. Perhaps he may answer my query.

I am not sure of the relevance of the following to this discussion but I will contribute it. Years ago in San Diego, a competent Priest was needed to celebrate Extraordinary Form Masses for the Latin Mass Society of San Diego. The Bishop assigned a Diocesan Priest to do this. The Priest in question said that he accepted the assignmment through obedience, even though he didn’t particularly want to do it and felt no special bond to or love for the Extraordinary Form. Nonetheless he did a remarkable job for years and stated that he found celebrating the Extraordinary Form enriched his celebrations of the Ordinary Form.

Now I don’t know if he was ordered to do it or assigned with an option not to accept, but he did state that he accepted the assignment through obedience.