Summorum Pontificum..Does it apply to the SSPX?

[Melchior_1]

I find it incredibly ironic that folks who sympathize with the SSPX are on here telling Brother JR “site your sources that a Bishop cannot force the EF onto priests” and that priests need to be obedient and follow explicit orders.

Brother JR’s canonical status is equal to a bishop. He’s an ordinary himself, including dealing with folks who are in a secular state (Secular Franciscans, although official full-fledged members of the Order, are still secular). As such, he is familiar with how the canonical structure works when it comes to matters like this.

Asking him politely for citations would be fine, but the tone here seems pretty hostile for no reason whatsoever.

 

[pnewton]

BrJr needs to provide a source for his argument.

He is a source. Asking him to prove a negative is fruitless and impossible. One can not document that an ordinary can** not** do something.

 

[pnewton]

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

I do not know why you put that phrase in quotes. The words are yours not mine.

 

[Rich_C]

I do not know why you put that phrase in quotes. The words are yours not mine.

Fair enough!

 

[Sirach2]

I believe some are questioning whether or not a priest can arbitrarily decide to celebrate mass in the extraordinary form. First, we need to establish that there is a stable group who have requested this, realizing that the numerical value of “stable” has not been established.

Second, the priest must be able to pray in latin, which few are able to do these days. My pastor was asked by one lady to have the EF, and he had to decline because of his rustiness in latin; besides, she could enjoin no other people to make up a stable group.

While the SP provides for mass to be said without the bishop’s permission, there are requirements involved before a priest can “at his own will” celebrate a TLM.

• He cannot override the obligation to celebrate first the Ordinary Form for his parishioners, as mandated by the S.P. This cannot be set aside by any personal spur of the moment decison to have a EF.
• Second, these liturgies must be scheduled and posted in the bulletin in advance. If Father wakes up some morning and decides that he is going to do a EF that day, overriding what has been previously scheduled, it is not permitted.
• One mass can be celebrated per day, but three on a weekend may be celebrated with permission of the Bishop to satisfy the needs of his parish, and also the needs of partner parishes to which many of our priests serve double duty. Therefore, he cannot override the daily OF liturgy to celebrate an EF, since he cannot celebrate another daily liturgy, unless it is a funeral or wedding. This eliminates the addition of a daily EF mass.
• As for weekends, if his parish is only celebrating the vigil on Saturday, and only one mass on Sunday as is the case in my parish, he cannot dismiss the obligation to celebrate the OF and supplement an EF for a minimally small stable group. The Church would not be able accomodate the overflow with only one liturgy per weekend for the OF. The Bishop would put his foot down on this.

 

[Rich_C]

He is a source. Asking him to prove a negative is fruitless and impossible. One can not document that an ordinary can** not** do something.

I don’t condone any disrespect to religious, certainly, but surely no one on CAF is above citing his sources. I know that Brother JR knows much more than I do, but why should anyone accept answers from the Internet simply on the authority of a forum member, even a distinguished one? People are right to ask for citations on important issues. If I saw a forum member refuse to cite reasons for his statements, I would certainly take them with a healthy grain of salt.

 

[JReducation]

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.

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.

There are few things that the article does not say. It does not say that the bishop commanded him. It says that his next assignment was to include adding the EF. The author is not clear is this means that he was asked to add an EF to his parish or he was sent to a parish that had an EF in place. Nor does it sound like the priest had an objection to celebrating the EF, in which case, the bishop was not asking him to do anything that the priest found problematic.

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.

There is the question about the EF. To the best of my knowledge, there is no law that a bishop can command the extraordinary. We have to rely on philosophy and logic. If something is extraordinary, can it be commanded? If so, when? Under what conditions? It is obvious that in life there are always going to be situations that are outside of the norm and that we cannot shy away from them.

It would seem logical that if a priest has the qualifications to celebrate the EF, has never expressed a position against celebrating it, there is a parish that has an EF, that such a priest can be assigned to that parish without doing an injustice to the priest.

The sense that I’m getting is that some people feel that bishops can arbitrarily command diocesan priests. This is not the case at all. People are asking me to give them a citation. I cannot give you a citation, because if it exists, I have never seen it. I can use logic and what I know about the legal tradition of the Church to arrive at conclusions just as any bishop, superior, justice or canon lawyer does when there is no law in the books and when something is unprecedented.

The law is very clear on what a bishop can command. It does not address everything that can and cannot be commanded. However, bishops cannot wait for the specific law to be written. They have to go with tradition. Traditionally, persons in authority use logic when there are unusual situations. That’s when four years of philosophy come in very handy.

Sometimes you have to separate what we can and cannot command and you must use logic to do so. The laws says that we can command A, B, and C. The question is whether X fits under A, B. or C. If not, then the next question is whether X violates someone’s rights. This is when bishops and religious superiors have to be very careful, because they could be walking in uncharted waters.

Tradition tells us that under normal circumstances the Church never commands the extraordinary. That’s the precedent that I’m using.

 

[otjm]

“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.

Unless you are a priest, you would not be part of the poll.

As far as “told”, the point I am trying to make is you are saying that was a command; I am saying, you have no clue what occurred before assignments were made. You are presuming there was no discussion of any of the particulars that would result in that priest being assigned to that parish. There is no basis for the presumption; on the contrary, priests are usually consulted on any transfer.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t condone any disrespect to religious, certainly, but surely no one on CAF is above citing his sources. I… If I saw a forum member refuse to cite reasons for his statements, I would certainly take them with a healthy grain of salt.

I understand that, but don’t you know that you ask the logically impossible? You are asking him to prove a negative. There need be no source for proving something can not happen. He would have to cite all the Church has ever said on the subject throughout history and then show that it no where states a bishop can make a diocesan priest perform an extraordinary task.

 

[JReducation]

Unless you are a priest, you would not be part of the poll.

As far as “told”, the point I am trying to make is you are saying that was a command; I am saying, you have no clue what occurred before assignments were made. You are presuming there was no discussion of any of the particulars that would result in that priest being assigned to that parish. There is no basis for the presumption; on the contrary, priests are usually consulted on any transfer.

This is an important point. Dioceses often operate like any other company. Assignments are made with consultation, not arbitrarily, especially if you’re treading on something out of the ordinary.

 

[dans0622]

If anyone wants the opinion of a canon lawyer, here’s one. I’d have to say that a bishop would be well within his rights to tell one of his priests to say the EF for the benefit of the faithful who desire it. I base this on canons 381.1, 383, 391.1, 835.1-2, as well as the directives to Bishops, in Summorum pontificum, instructing them to attend to the legitimate aspirations of those who desire the EF. Sure there should be some consultation, etc., but at the end of the day, if the Bishop determines that the diocese needs someone to offer the EF but no priest volunteers, he can order someone to do it. I can see no way that a priest could expect the Holy See to take his side if he were to attempt recourse against such a directive.

I don’t think Benedict’s use of “extraordinary” fits neatly into a canonical category. It has been said that this use of extraordinary/ordinary might best relate to the extraordinary/ordinary synod of Bishops (c. 346). I don’t know how helpful that correlation is. In any event, Benedict used different terms to refer to the Mass/Sacraments celebrated according to the earlier liturgical books, not just “extraordinary form.” So, I don’t think we are bound to that terminology and nothing else.

Dan

 

[JReducation]

If anyone wants the opinion of a canon lawyer, here’s one. I’d have to say that a bishop would be well within his rights to tell one of his priests to say the EF for the benefit of the faithful who desire it. I base this on canons 381.1, 383, 391.1, 835.1-2, as well as the directives to Bishops, in Summorum pontificum, instructing them to attend to the legitimate aspirations of those who desire the EF. Sure there should be some consultation, etc., but at the end of the day, if the Bishop determines that the diocese needs someone to offer the EF but no priest volunteers, he can order someone to do it. I can see no way that a priest could expect the Holy See to take his side if he were to attempt recourse against such a directive.

I don’t think Benedict’s use of “extraordinary” fits neatly into a canonical category. It has been said that this use of extraordinary/ordinary might best relate to the extraordinary/ordinary synod of Bishops (c. 346). I don’t know how helpful that correlation is. In any event, Benedict used different terms to refer to the Mass/Sacraments celebrated according to the earlier liturgical books, not just “extraordinary form.” So, I don’t think we are bound to that terminology and nothing else.

Dan

Here is the problem.
**
Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.**

The moment you throw in the term “ordinary” you exclude the exception.
**
Can. 383 §1. In exercising the function of a pastor, a diocesan bishop is to show himself concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to his care, of whatever age, condition, or nationality they are, whether living in the territory or staying there temporarily; he is also to extend an apostolic spirit to those who are not able to make sufficient use of ordinary pastoral care because of the condition of their life and to those who no longer practice their religion.

§2. If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either through priests or parishes of the same rite or through an episcopal vicar.

§3. He is to act with humanity and charity toward the brothers and sisters who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church and is to foster ecumenism as it is understood by the Church.

§4. He is to consider the non-baptized as committed to him in the Lord, so that there shines on them the charity of Christ whose witness a bishop must be before all people.**

This canon is about the bishop’s obligation to charity. It would not apply here. The question is not about charity, but about justice. Does a priest have to celebrate the EF?
**
Can. 391 §1. It is for the diocesan bishop to govern the particular church entrusted to him with legislative, executive, and judicial power according to the norm of law.**

According to the norm of law means that he cannot go outside the law. The question remains. Is it outside the law to demand that a priest do that which the Church does not demand of him?
**
Can. 835 §1. The bishops in the first place exercise the sanctifying function; they are the high priests, the principal dispensers of the mysteries of God, and the directors, promoters, and guardians of the entire liturgical life in the church entrusted to them.

§2. Presbyters also exercise this function; sharing in the priesthood of Christ and as his ministers under the authority of the bishop, they are consecrated to celebrate divine worship and to sanctify the people.**

These canons are describing the ministry of the bishop and the priest. By providing what the Church offers as normative and by complying with SP, the bishop and priest are fulfilling their roles. But SP keeps pointing to what the priest can do, celebrate the EF, not what the priest MUST do.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please get back on topic or start another thread on canon law.

Thank you

 

[otjm]

With deference to the post by Thomas Casey - what does Summorum Pontificum say?

I laid that out in a previous post; it does not say that those seeking the EF can demand the priest say the EF, nor does it require the priest to do so.

Furthermore, SP also speaks to the bishop, and the bishop is not required to provide the EF; he is urged to do so very seriously.

If Canon law provided that the bishop could demand a priest do so, it would make absolutely no sense that SP would tell the bishop in so many words that he should use his best effort as this implies that he may not be able to accomplish having the EF said.

Rome doesn’t write general law which would apply and then write specific law which ignores the general law.

Bro. JR is correct, and those who are seeking to fault the bishops for not demanding, for not requiring, for not directing a priest to say the EF are ignoring the substance of SP. SP is plain on the face (and I gave three different translations so this issue could be laid to rest) - neither the priest nor the bishop is required to provide the EF.

Why else would the matter be directed to Rome if it could be solved so simply on the local level? Because it cannot be solved on the local level in all circumstances.

And to get back to the original question - the SSPX are without jurisdiction to confect the sacraments; they are not to be saying Mass, period. And SP does not direct them to do so.

 

[MikeDunphy]

…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…

Many of us traditionalists do agree with you that no Pope actually banned the TLM. Nevertheless, I can tell you, the Masses became very difficult to find. When I first started looking for one locally a decade ago, our diocese allowed exactly one, once per month. The couple of times I made the trip, the church was always locked up and empty at the scheduled time.

 

[GWright]

While it is true that there was never a blanket ban from the top regarding the EF, its also true that many local Bishops can suppress it if they so choose.

This suppression can take various forms - an outright prohibition by the Bishop, refusing to provide training, considering priests who show an interest as troublemakers etc etc.

A few years back, one of the UK national newspapers carried a story that the then Archbishop of Glasgow was making life difficult for a priest, purely because he wanted to learn the TLM. (He wanted to do so as his own father, who was dying at the time, had requested a traditional funeral service).

A summary:
catholicnewsagency.com/news/universae-ecclesiae-one-priests-story/

A really good example is how the Institute of the Good Shepherd (a traditional order) operates in Santiago, Chile. They are not allowed to celebrate the Tridentine rite publicly in Santiago - because the Bishop says no - and so their masses are called “private masses” meaning no local authorisation is required - this work around is possible thanks to Summorum Pontificum.

NOTE: 1. - **The canonical character of our celebrations has been and is in private Masses ** 2. - A l place is called “Oratorio” by analogy, since without the approval of the Ordinary was and is just a private home priestly and recently also the administrative offices of the Institute of the Good Shepherd. 3. - According to the decree Pope’s Summorum Pontificum, any priest can celebrate Mass according to the extraordinary form private (cf. art. 2), and the faithful who wish can attend the celebration (cf. art. 4), without requiring any other authorization that given by the Pope.

delbuenpastor.blogspot.co.uk/

(its a non-english language link, so I had to use google translate!).

As for SP affecting the SSPX - I cannot see that it has any effect on, or relates to, the SSPX at all.

If the ongoing reconciliation efforts are succesful, the SSPX has no intention of submitting itself to the authority of local Bishops - many of whom it likely regards as apostates and heretics. They have openly said that, if the reconciliation is achieved, they do not want to be integrated into existing Diocesan structures - rather they will continue to run and police themselves as a distinct body, just as they do now.

Therefore, as the decision making of a local ordinary will have no bearing on SSPX actions in the first place, they have no fundamental requirement to make use of the various clauses in SP.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Failure to comply with moderator directions.

CLOSED