Two priest of a diocese in Italy turn totally tradition is their own churches. Glorious!

[jmj1984]

As for the obedience issue, of course Br Jr, is right. Obedience is crucial, however if a lower and higher law conflicts then one must follow the higher, is this not true obedience?

If the TLM was never suppressed then the Papal Bull that enforced the tridentine was likewise not abrogated. This Bull explicitly stated that no one, whether it be a bishop, cardinal, patriarch or religious superior could forbid those under his jursidiction from celebrating the Tridentine Mass. ‘**Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing. **’ Quo Primum

Now it is a principle of law that a document is only completely abrogated if explicitly abrogated, implicit abrogation only applies to those sections irreconciliable with later law. Leaving aside any controversy or polemics about whether it could or could not bind later popes, according to the principles of law which are used by canon law the Bull remains in force until abrogated. Now since the only act which could have been claimed to abrogate it was the apparent abrogation by Pope Paul VI, which we are now told by Pope Benedict XVI in SP did not in fact take place, the Bull is still in force, therefore all the priests and religious that were persecuted for disobedience were not in fact disobedient rather they obeyed a higher law, that of the Holy See which remained in force despite or perhaps because of its venerable antiquity.

Of course this is only a theological opinion.

 

[JReducation]

As for the obedience issue, of course Br Jr, is right. Obedience is crucial, however if a lower and higher law conflicts then one must follow the higher, is this not true obedience?

If the TLM was never suppressed then the Papal Bull that enforced the tridentine was likewise not abrogated. This Bull explicitly stated that no one, whether it be a bishop, cardinal, patriarch or religious superior could forbid those under his jursidiction from celebrating the Tridentine Mass. ‘Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing. ’ Quo Primum

Now it is a principle of law that a document is only completely abrogated if explicitly abrogated, implicit abrogation only applies to those sections irreconciliable with later law. Leaving aside any controversy or polemics about whether it could or could not bind later popes, according to the principles of law which are used by canon law the Bull remains in force until abrogated. Now since the only act which could have been claimed to abrogate it was the apparent abrogation by Pope Paul VI, which we are now told by Pope Benedict XVI in SP did not in fact take place, the Bull is still in force, therefore all the priests and religious that were persecuted for disobedience were not in fact disobedient rather they obeyed a higher law, that of the Holy See which remained in force despite or perhaps because of its venerable antiquity.

Of course this is only a theological opinion.

This is part of the truth, but not all of it. We can’t just throw out religious rules that are also in force and to which religious have vowed obedience. We cannot throw out the rules and procedures established by the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and what was the Sacred Congregation for Religious, which now has a very long name.

What happens is that a diocesan priest or a religious who is a priest, must obey and appeal his case. In an appeal, these things come to light and the religious or priest is liberated to act. The priest may not go over his bishop’s head nor may a religious go over the head of his superior. That’s why SP is very careful to speak to the issue of obedience. Pope Benedict wants to make sure that it is clear that the missal of 1962 was never abrogated, however, he also wants to make it clear that religious cannot go over the heads of their superiors or the laws of their religious institutes.

I’m not saying that a bishop who denies the permission to celebrate the EF before SP was not mistaken. I’m saying that the priest had to obey and take the case through due process.

Are the suspensions valid? Yes. Why? Because even when authority is mistaken, unless you are commanded to sin, you must comply until you can appeal your case. The burden of proof is always on the priest or the reliigious, never on the superior or the bishop. You are being suspended for disobeying, not for celebrating the EF.

As it stands today, if the superior says that a religious who is a priest cannot celebrate the EF in public, he is within his legal rights, regardless of what Quo Primum says, because Quo Primum does not trump the rule of an order and SP and UE support the rules, constitutions and major superiors.

SP, being newer than Quo Primum has the final word . . . until the next document.

Popes can change the rules of Augustine, Benedict, Francis, Albert, John, and Basil, with a bull. No such bulls have been issued since Paul VI changed one of Francis’ rules. Before that, the last change was by Pope Innocent III who added to the Rule of St. Albert. All of these rules are sealed by papal bulls. Only another bull can change them.

In all of them a superior can suspend for not choosing the color of the toothbrush he commanded. You may think this is silly, but it has been done. The Rule of St. Benedict says that the Abbot is Christ and he cannot be questioned, challenged, or disobeyed except when he commands sin. He has full control over the daily life of the monk, the property, the liturgical life of the community, the liturgy itself (he can rewrite the missal and breviary, but that’s a whole other thread), he may not be deposed. That’s probably why they murdered so many. There are no term limits in Benedictine houses. Abbots have suspended and punished for things that we think are silly. But it sticks. The Church upholds it.

Among Franciscans, the local superior does not have the same power as an abbot, but the successor of Francis does. These superiors have had friars executed. Francis himself had friars excommunicated for disagreeing with him. The major superior can still make this request of the Congregation for the Faith.

We can’t just pull out one document. There are many documents signed and sealed by popes. They all have to be looked at together.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

This is part of the truth, but not all of it. We can’t just throw out religious rules that are also in force and to which religious have vowed obedience. We cannot throw out the rules and procedures established by the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and what was the Sacred Congregation for Religious, which now has a very long name.

What happens is that a diocesan priest or a religious who is a priest, must obey and appeal his case. In an appeal, these things come to light and the religious or priest is liberated to act. The priest may not go over his bishop’s head nor may a religious go over the head of his superior. That’s why SP is very careful to speak to the issue of obedience. Pope Benedict wants to make sure that it is clear that the missal of 1962 was never abrogated, however, he also wants to make it clear that religious cannot go over the heads of their superiors or the laws of their religious institutes.

I’m not saying that a bishop who denies the permission to celebrate the EF before SP was not mistaken. I’m saying that the priest had to obey and take the case through due process.

Are the suspensions valid? Yes. Why? Because even when authority is mistaken, unless you are commanded to sin, you must comply until you can appeal your case. The burden of proof is always on the priest or the reliigious, never on the superior or the bishop. You are being suspended for disobeying, not for celebrating the EF.

As it stands today, if the superior says that a religious who is a priest cannot celebrate the EF in public, he is within his legal rights, regardless of what Quo Primum says, because Quo Primum does not trump the rule of an order and SP and UE support the rules, constitutions and major superiors.

SP, being newer than Quo Primum has the final word . . . until the next document.

Popes can change the rules of Augustine, Benedict, Francis, Albert, John, and Basil, with a bull. No such bulls have been issued since Paul VI changed one of Francis’ rules. Before that, the last change was by Pope Innocent III who added to the Rule of St. Albert. All of these rules are sealed by papal bulls. Only another bull can change them.

In all of them a superior can suspend for not choosing the color of the toothbrush he commanded. You may think this is silly, but it has been done. The Rule of St. Benedict says that the Abbot is Christ and he cannot be questioned, challenged, or disobeyed except when he commands sin. He has full control over the daily life of the monk, the property, the liturgical life of the community, the liturgy itself (he can rewrite the missal and breviary, but that’s a whole other thread), he may not be deposed. That’s probably why they murdered so many. There are no term limits in Benedictine houses. Abbots have suspended and punished for things that we think are silly. But it sticks. The Church upholds it.

Among Franciscans, the local superior does not have the same power as an abbot, but the successor of Francis does. These superiors have had friars executed. Francis himself had friars excommunicated for disagreeing with him. The major superior can still make this request of the Congregation for the Faith.

We can’t just pull out one document. There are many documents signed and sealed by popes. They all have to be looked at together.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br Jr this is all very well and good and I do understand the importance of obedience, less so than you of course and its a virtue I could do with more of, but Summorum Pontificum does not explicitly abrogate Quo Primum. **As I explained above it is a principal of law, that unless a law is explicitly abrogated it remains abrogated only insofar as later law contradicts it.**Now we know that Quo Primum has never been explicitly abrogated therefore it remains in force, this being the case no one who was ever punished for celebrating the EF was disobedient rather they were obedient to a higher law, that of The Holy See which gave them a ‘right in perpetuity’ to celebrate Tridentine Rite.

For those who dispute that Quo Primum has been abrogated it is worth nothing two things:

1)As SP says the Tridentine Rite has never abrogated nor does SP explicitly abrogate Quo Primum
2)As regards implicit abrogation there are two points worth nothing:
a)Whether a document such as Quo Primum can be abrogated implicitly or whether it must be explicitly abrogated -it is not at all certain that all laws can be implicitly abrogated-, the text of the document lends itself to the idea that it must be explicitly abrogated
b)That a law is only implicitly abrogated insofar as it is compatible with later law, now the section of Quo Primum assuring all religious and clergy that they cannot be punished for celebrating it has not been implicitly abrogated by SP. This means it is still in force notwithstanding what a persons superiors or any one of any rank or dignity may believe as the document itself states

All this is an inescapable consequence of the nature of canon law, something that Pope Benedict XVI would be well aware of.

 

[Phemie]

Gee, even Fr. Z doesn’t agree with these two. They are doing this to please themselves, not necessarily to help those to whom they are ministering.

You give people what they need, not what you want. Few people NEED the EF. Certainly most parishes would benefit more from a properly celebrated OF than from a regularly celebrated EF – and I say this as a person who’d like to see the EF celebrated in my parish monthly to help those who really want it. That won’t happen because we don’t have anyone who can celebrated it and it’s ridiculous to think we can afford to fly someone to our isolated community to do so on a regular basis.

 

[Will_S]

Gee, even Fr. Z doesn’t agree with these two. They are doing this to please themselves, not necessarily to help those to whom they are ministering.

You give people what they need, not what you want. Few people NEED the EF. Certainly most parishes would benefit more from a properly celebrated OF than from a regularly celebrated EF – and I say this as a person who’d like to see the EF celebrated in my parish monthly to help those who really want it. That won’t happen because we don’t have anyone who can celebrated it and it’s ridiculous to think we can afford to fly someone to our isolated community to do so on a regular basis.

According to the news items from 2007 when this was first going down, about 90% of the parish of St. Maria Maggiore (one of these priests was the pastor) signed a petition supporting the priest and saying they wanted only the EF in their parish.

As a result, the bishop dismissed the pastor and installed a new pastor.

 

[JReducation]

Br Jr this is all very well and good and I do understand the importance of obedience, less so than you of course and its a virtue I could do with more of, but Summorum Pontificum does not explicitly abrogate Quo Primum. **As I explained above it is a principal of law, that unless a law is explicitly abrogated it remains abrogated only insofar as later law contradicts it.**Now we know that Quo Primum **has never been explicitly abrogated therefore it remains in force, this being the case no one who was ever punished for celebrating the EF was disobedient **rather they were obedient to a higher law, that of The Holy See ****which gave them a ‘right in perpetuity’ to celebrate Tridentine Rite.
.

This is the part that you’re misunderstanding. This principle is not applied this way to those who have vowed obedience. St. Benedict made it very clear the obedience to the superior is always the highest good, with the exception of sin. The Church has always applied Benedict’s principle to religious and to diocesan clergy. The higher law is the law is always the law of obedience.

You do not make vows to the Holy See. You make vows to your immediate superior. The rules that govern religious and clerical obedience are based on St. Benedict’s rule. The immediate superior is Christ. This must be accepted de fide, unless a higher authority, such as the Holy See, rules to the contrary. We, diocesan priests and religious, are never allowed to assume that the higher ecclesial authority will rule in our favor. Benedict does not allow for that. You must obey the immediate superior, be he a bishop or a major superior. You always have the right to appeal, if you believe that the person in authority has erred. Until the higher authority rules in your favor, you are bound to obey.

In the case of Quo Primum and SP, SP makes it clear that the only Tridentine missal that can be used is the missal of 1962. It also makes clear that only diocesan priests can celebrate the EF in public without permission. Priests in religious orders must have the permission of the major superiors according to the laws and statutes of their institutes. This is a restriction that was not in Quo Primum, but it’s a restriction that Pope Benedict has decreed and is making it stick. If you’re a religious and you celebrate the EF for the public without permission, you can be suspended and the suspension sticks. The way that the docket is worded is “Suspended for willful disobedience.” The tribunal does not care what the issue is. It falls upon the individual to prove that he did not willfully disobey.

I hope this makes sense.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

This is the part that you’re misunderstanding. This principle is not applied this way to those who have vowed obedience. St. Benedict made it very clear the obedience to the superior is always the highest good, with the exception of sin. The Church has always applied Benedict’s principle to religious and to diocesan clergy. The higher law is the law is always the law of obedience.

You do not make vows to the Holy See. You make vows to your immediate superior. The rules that govern religious and clerical obedience are based on St. Benedict’s rule. The immediate superior is Christ. This must be accepted de fide, unless a higher authority, such as the Holy See, rules to the contrary. We, diocesan priests and religious, are never allowed to assume that the higher ecclesial authority will rule in our favor. Benedict does not allow for that. You must obey the immediate superior, be he a bishop or a major superior. You always have the right to appeal, if you believe that the person in authority has erred. Until the higher authority rules in your favor, you are bound to obey.

In the case of Quo Primum and SP, SP makes it clear that the only Tridentine missal that can be used is the missal of 1962. It also makes clear that only diocesan priests can celebrate the EF in public without permission. Priests in religious orders must have the permission of the major superiors according to the laws and statutes of their institutes. This is a restriction that was not in Quo Primum, but it’s a restriction that Pope Benedict has decreed and is making it stick. If you’re a religious and you celebrate the EF for the public without permission, you can be suspended and the suspension sticks. The way that the docket is worded is “Suspended for willful disobedience.” The tribunal does not care what the issue is. It falls upon the individual to prove that he did not willfully disobey.

I hope this makes sense.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for that post Br Jr

Correct me if I’m wrong but I was told that the vow of obedience applies more fully or at least as much to the Holy Father as it does to the superior of a religious? Certainly if Quo Primum applies than according to St pius V’s very words, religious need not fear any punishment regardless who tells them they are to be punished because they have a legal right to celebrate Quo Primum.

As for SP, I cannot actually see anywhere where it rules that religious must have the permission of their superior to celebrate the tridentine rite privately and those who were disciplined for using it were sometimes disciplined because they had used it privately, some had not celebrated the tridentine publicly. This being the case in those cases they were justified by Quo Primum as it has not been abrogated. For that matter I cannot see anywhere in Summorum Pontificum where occasional celebrations of the tridentine rite i.e not habitual, require the permission of the superior, so again those that were punished for doing this were legally speaking at least protected by Quo Primum.

Of course this completely avoids the thorny issue of whether a document such as Quo Primum which explicitly states that it cannot be abrogated can in fact be abrogated by ‘implied abrogation’ or as it is more commonly known ‘Implied repeal’. It is not at all certain that it can be abrogated by implied repeal.

It is also worth noting that this deals only with the religious that were disciplined, not the many secular priests who were likewise disciplined and for whom I do not believe any cogent argument can be made that Quo Primum did not apply.

I do not expect that you and I will agree and I may well be wrong but nevertheless the idea that Quo Primum is still in force and has never been abrogated is a valid opinion held by many both in good standing with the church and not in good standing and a cogent argument can be made to support it. That is all I intended to demonstrate.

 

[At_Trent]

Gee, even Fr. Z doesn’t agree with these two. They are doing this to please themselves, not necessarily to help those to whom they are ministering.

You give people what they need, not what you want. Few people NEED the EF. Certainly most parishes would benefit more from a properly celebrated OF than from a regularly celebrated EF – and I say this as a person who’d like to see the EF celebrated in my parish monthly to help those who really want it. That won’t happen because we don’t have anyone who can celebrated it and it’s ridiculous to think we can afford to fly someone to our isolated community to do so on a regular basis.

whoa

I’m not reporting this, but if that isn’t stating the supremacy of the OF over the EF, I don’t know what is. That is a rule violation, cut and dried Phemie.

And why not let those who feel they need the EF to nourish their spirituality speak for themselves ? And these priests as well.

 

[Brendan]

Thanks for that post Br Jr

Correct me if I’m wrong but I was told that the vow of obedience applies more fully or at least as much to the Holy Father as it does to the superior of a religious? Certainly if Quo Primum applies than according to St pius V’s very words, religious need not fear any punishment regardless who tells them they are to be punished because they have a legal right to celebrate Quo Primum.

I don’t think anyone is disputing that they have a legal right to say the EF Mass,

Rather, in giving vow of obedience, a religious choses to subordinate their rights to their superior.

In other words, they have willfully chosen to hand the excercise of their rights in all matters that are not sinful over to their superior in religion.

 

[jmj1984]

I don’t think anyone is disputing that they have a legal right to say the EF Mass,

Rather, in giving vow of obedience, a religious choses to subordinate their rights to their superior.

In other words, they have willfully chosen to hand the excercise of their rights in all matters that are not sinful over to their superior in religion.

Thanks for that clarification.

But that doesn’t change the very specific wording of Quo Primum which chose to include religious and explicitly state they had no need to fear any punishment, Pope St Pius V can hardly be said to be ignorant of this fact and therefore gave them a right which they could exercise notwithstanding their vows of obedience

On another note I am a little confused how we ended up talking about religious in regards to an article that deals with secular priests Even the theological opinion I subscribe to is wrong and the opinion Br Jr subscribes to is right that does not change the fact that Quo Primum would still be in full force amongst secular priests. And it is they who have arguably suffered the most over the years.

 

[JReducation]

JMJ, in your passionate defense of Quo Primum you are failing to look at everything that we, religious and diocesan clergy and religious look at.

Quo Primum does not stand alone. There are rules written by the founders of the order. There are constitutions written by the general chapters of the orders. All of these are approved by the Holy See. The Holy See knows that these exist. When a pope issues a document like Quo Primum, he knows that there are exceptions to his statement and everyone who is exempt knows who they are. The Council of Trent created the Law of Exemption, precisely to excavate religious out from under these problems.

When a pope issues a statement such as Quo Primum, SP and UE, they only apply to the exempt religious if the pope explicitly tells them so by name. This is what is called Pontifical Right. If the pope does not explicitly address exempt religious, the right of exemption takes precedence. The reason is that the same popes who write such documents also ratify the rules written by founders and they promulgate the constitutions written by the general chapters. In essence a pope can issue an encyclical saying that everyone must eat red apples. The Church must give it assent of the will. However, the Sulpicians show up with an article in their constitution that says that Sulpicians can only eat green apples. They submit this to the pope. He promulgates it. The law remains. Everyone must eat red apples, except the Sulpicians who are holding a document in their hand, approved by the pope, that says they can only eat green apples. Until some pope tells the Sulpicians that they have to take that statute out of their constitutions, it remains their law. That’s why Pope Benedict mentions the major superiors and the ordinary law of the religious institutes. The institute can have laws that are different from what was promulgated by the pope and those laws are binding, because they too are promulgated by the pope. They remain in force until the pope says they are not.

How does this play out for diocesan clergy before SP. It was the common belief that the EF was abrogated. Albeit, that belief was wrong for whatever reasons, stupid mistakes, misunderstanding, conspiracy, take your pick. The bishop has every right to command and to prohibit in his diocese those priests who promise obedience to him. The vow does not say that they obey only when he’s right. Therefore, whether he commands them not to celebrate the EF or not to eat ice cream on Sundays, as long as he is not commanding them to sin, they must obey.

If they believed that the bishop was mistaken, they had to make use of due process. They cannot be their own judge, jury and defense attorney. That does not work even in civil law. If you do that in the military you’ll probably be shot without a trial. If the priest proceeded to celebrate the EF on the belief that Quo Primum gave him the right to do so, he was correct in his assumption. He was in error in his means. You cannot do a wrong to achieve a good. Disobedience is not a virtue unless it’s to avoid sin. You’d have to prove that the OF is a sin.

In that case, the bishop has the right to censure, suspend, transfer or use any other legal consequence because the priest disobeyed. Notice, he’s being brought up on charges because he disobeyed an order. The Church does not care if the bishop or the religious superior is wrong. The Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and the Sacred Congregation for Religious have rules, which say that no one may disobey an order by a legitimate authority unless the order is explicitly sinful. The only time that you are not in violation of your vow to obey is when you refuse to commit a sin. The logic goes back to St. Benedict. When you disobey, you set yourself up as an equal to your superior (religious superior or bishop) and this is a sin against justice. In justice, you owe this person obedience. You promised him that much. You did not promise to obey him only when he is right.

Heck, my mother was wrong many times. However, there is no such a thing as an 11th commandment, “Honor your father and mother when they’re right.” It falls on the person who believes that he is being wronged to take his case through due process, not to proceed on his own. If you proceed, you have set yourself up as your superior’s or your bishop’s equal. You are never his equal. The determination as to whether your boss is right or wrong has to be made by someone who is above him, not beneath him. You are his subordinate.

In addition, please read my statement again. I never said that religious priest may not celebrate the EF in private. I said they may not celebrate it in public without permission from the major superior. In fact, in some religious orders a priest cannot celebrate any form of the mass without permission of his superior. It depends on the constitutions or the rule. In the Franciscan rule it says that if there is more than one priest in the house, only one can celebrate mass. There is no room for a private mass. The rule clearly says that the other priests must attend the mass along with the non ordained friars and laity. Even in the case that they don’t need permission to celebrate the EF in private, they may need permission to celebrate mass, depending on the superior. Most superiors grant liberal permission to any ordained religious to celebrate mass at any time. But he does not have to do so. Neither SP or QP are going to get into every possible exception. The people who are not included know who they are.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

JMJ, in your passionate defense of Quo Primum you are failing to look at everything that we, religious and diocesan clergy and religious look at.

Quo Primum does not stand alone. There are rules written by the founders of the order. There are constitutions written by the general chapters of the orders. All of these are approved by the Holy See. The Holy See knows that these exist. When a pope issues a document like Quo Primum, he knows that there are exceptions to his statement and everyone who is exempt knows who they are. The Council of Trent created the Law of Exemption, precisely to excavate religious out from under these problems.

When a pope issues a statement such as Quo Primum, SP and UE, they only apply to the exempt religious if the pope explicitly tells them so by name. This is what is called Pontifical Right. If the pope does not explicitly address exempt religious, the right of exemption takes precedence.
How does this play out for diocesan clergy before SP. It was the common belief that the EF was abrogated. Albeit, that belief was wrong for whatever reasons, stupid mistakes, misunderstanding, conspiracy, take your pick. The bishop has every right to command and to prohibit in his diocese those priests who promise obedience to him. The vow does not say that they obey only when he’s right. Therefore, whether he commands them not to celebrate the EF or not to eat ice cream on Sundays, as long as he is not commanding them to sin, they must obey.

If they believed that the bishop was mistaken, they had to make use of due process. They cannot be their own judge, jury and defense attorney. That does not work even in civil law. If you do that in the military you’ll probably be shot without a trial. If the priest proceeded to celebrate the EF on the belief that Quo Primum gave him the right to do so, he was correct in his assumption. He was in error in his means. You cannot do a wrong to achieve a good. Disobedience is not a virtue unless it’s to avoid sin. You’d have to prove that the OF is a sin.

In that case, the bishop has the right to censure, suspend, transfer or use any other legal consequence because the priest disobeyed. Notice, he’s being brought up on charges because he disobeyed an order. The Church does not care if the bishop or the religious superior is wrong. The Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and the Sacred Congregation for Religious have rules, which say that no one may disobey an order by a legitimate authority unless the order is explicitly sinful. The only time that you are not in violation of your vow to obey is when you refuse to commit a sin.

Heck, my mother was wrong many times. However, there is no such a thing as an 11th
In addition, please read my statement again. I never said that religious priest may not celebrate the EF in private. I said they may not celebrate it in public without permission from the major superior. In fact, in some religious orders a priest cannot celebrate any form of the mass without permission of his superior. It depends on the constitutions or the rule. In the Franciscan rule it says that if there is more than one priest in the house, only one can celebrate mass. There is no room for a private mass. The rule clearly says that the other priests must attend the mass along with the non ordained friars and laity. Even in the case that they don’t need permission to celebrate the EF in private, they may need permission to celebrate mass, depending on the superior. Most superiors grant liberal permission to any ordained religious to celebrate mass at any time. But he does not have to do so. Neither SP or QP are going to get into every possible exception. The people who are not included know who they are.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br Jr, without seeming arrogant I disagree with what you have posted, I guess I and others who hold to my theological opinion will just have to agree to disagree, even with religious such as yourself.

It is a fact that Quo Primum explicitly names all clergy and states that they are free to celebrate it without punishment, it leaves none out and indeed excludes all exemptions explicitly, the burden of proof is therefore on those that do not believe it applies. This proof has yet to be supplied. As regards this rule of exemption I have not seen anywhere that it applies to such documents as papal bulls and canon law, indeed such documents have exemptions written in.

I don’t know if all the religious orders and congregations re-wrote their constitutions and so on, on the basis of the supposed abrogation, those that didn’t certainly cannot claim to have exempted themselves from Quo Primum, those that did, did so on the basis of something that is now shown to have never happened, in a word to be false. I cannot see how something based on an albeit unknown objective falsehood can be said to overrule the truth.

As for the obedience issue, I cannot see how obedience to the truth in the face of opposition from those who are objectively wrong can be said to be wrong
I cannot value obedience over truth itself, that seems to me to turn the whole order of things on its head.

And yes you are right Br Jr, I being a layman could well be wrong, but all the religious and diocesan clergy and even bishops who believed Quo Primum was still in force also subscribed to the same view I do. They had the benefit of a proper formation as you did, of great spiritual maturity as you do and of many virtues as you do and yet they believed and believe as I do, I trust in them not myself nor the force of my arguments.

Respectfully then Br Jr, I will have to agree to disagree.

 

[simple_soul]

*JMJ I do not know that I would be so quick to dismiss what Br. JR is saying.

I recently heard Archbishop Cyril Bustros give an address, I am not sure if it was his own address or the address that he read from Patriarch Gregorios III, Patriarch of Antioch. I was dividing my attention to my two very tired and vexed young men and what was being said. But a few of the lines that really stuck out were the following. First, he said something about the twelve Apostles being the twelve walls of the New Jerusalem and because of Apostolic succession, these walls still stand.
He also went on to say that those who hear there voice hear the voice of Christ. If you are with them, then you are with Christ. It was a beautiful address and I wish I could remember it word for word. I am trying to get my hands on a copy of it if I can I will post it.

Anyway, what I got from it is if we want to be with Christ we need to be with our Hierarchy. The way I understand being with the Hierarchy is by being obedient to them even when we do not agree with them. I know I could be wrong, but this is how I understood what was being said.
*

 

[jmj1984]

*JMJ I do not know that I would be so quick to dismiss what Br. JR is saying.

I recently heard Archbishop Cyril Bustros give an address, I am not sure if it was his own address or the address that he read from Patriarch Gregorios III, Patriarch of Antioch. I was dividing my attention to my two very tired and vexed young men and what was being said. But a few of the lines that really stuck out were the following. First, he said something about the twelve Apostles being the twelve walls of the New Jerusalem and because of Apostolic succession, these walls still stand.
He also went on to say that those who hear there voice hear the voice of Christ. If you are with them, then you are with Christ. It was a beautiful address and I wish I could remember it word for word. I am trying to get my hands on a copy of it if I can I will post it.

Anyway, what I got from it is if we want to be with Christ we need to be with our Hierarchy. The way I understand being with the Hierarchy is by being obedient to them even when we do not agree with them. I know I could be wrong, but this is how I understood what was being said.
*

I am not dismissing simply disagreeing with what Br Jr says, that is a right I have as a Catholic. And thank you for the post but I am afraid my mind on this matter is made up and just as nothing would convince those priests and religious who continued to celebrate the Tridentine Rite nothing is going to convince me.

 

[santodomingo]

While I do not claim to grasp the finer points of Br. JReducation´s argument, I disagree with him on the issue of obedience. Of course he has a far deeper understanding of this, but to me as a layman I cannot accept that one can be lawfully commanded to do something that one knows is wrong, even if it does not as such constitute a sin.

Allow me to explain: saying the Novus Ordo Mass is not necessarily a sin in itself, yet one can argue that ditching the Tridentine Mass that every priest has every right to say, is a contribution to the destruction of the Faith. You start by “concelebrating” the new liturgy and you end up prancing around the altar to Bod Dylan songs. Of course, to see this argument you have to appreciate the flawed theology of the NO Mass, which Brother JR doesn´t. And, correct me if I´m wrong, but it would be right to disobey an order that a priest (religious or not) perceived as harmful to the Catholic Church and an offense to the Faith.

Whether a disobedient priest is correct in this assessment is another matter; if he judges in conscience that what is demanded of him is to the detriment of the Church, he should not do it.

Boy, I bet this comment will get some response!

 

[santodomingo]

Brother JR said it perfectly: “The higher law is always the law of obedience.”

Maybe I read this to mean something different. I understand it to mean that one should always obey the higher law. For example, the law says it´s wrong to steal, but if someone is dying of hunger and he steals a loaf of bread, he commits no sin, because there is a higher law regarding self-preservation.

Likewise, if a bishop enters another bishop´s diocese and imparts the sacraments without the latter´s permission, that would normally be considered a sin, according to the Church´s laws of jurisdiction. However, if the invading bishop is attending faithful who are suffering under a heretical bishop, as St. Athanasius did during the Arian crisis, there is no sin, because the Salvation of Souls is the higher law. In fact, the salvation of souls is THE supreme law, that cancels out any other laws which contradict it.

 

[simple_soul]

Brother JR said it perfectly: “The higher law is always the law of obedience.”

Maybe I read this to mean something different. I understand it to mean that one should always obey the higher law. For example, the law says it´s wrong to steal, but if someone is dying of hunger and he steals a loaf of bread, he commits no sin, because there is a higher law regarding self-preservation.

Likewise, if a bishop enters another bishop´s diocese and imparts the sacraments without the latter´s permission, that would normally be considered a sin, according to the Church´s laws of jurisdiction. However, if the invading bishop is attending faithful who are suffering under a heretical bishop, as St. Athanasius did during the Arian crisis, there is no sin, because the Salvation of Souls is the higher law. In fact, the salvation of souls is THE supreme law, that cancels out any other laws which contradict it.

All I can say is wow! If this is what Br. JR is saying then I really need to get my hands on the Screw Tape Letters by C.S Lewis and I had better start reading and praying about it to see how I am getting it so wrong.

 

[simple_soul]

I am not dismissing simply disagreeing with what Br Jr says, that is a right I have as a Catholic. And thank you for the post but I am afraid my mind on this matter is made up and just as nothing would convince those priests and religious who continued to celebrate the Tridentine Rite nothing is going to convince me.

JMJ, it is because you state that nothing is going to convince you that leads me to understand that you are taking what Br. JR is saying and not just disagreeing with it, but dismissing it all together. If am not understanding something correctly I apologize.

 

[jmj1984]

JMJ, it is because you state that nothing is going to convince you that leads me to understand that you are taking what Br. JR is saying and not just disagreeing with it, but dismissing it all together. If am not understanding something correctly I apologize.

Disagreeing and dismissing mean much the same thing. To dismiss is simply ruder and as I would not be rude towards a religious no matter our disagreements, I am not dismissing it. I merely disagree and subscribe to another theological opinion.

 

[simple_soul]

Disagreeing and dismissing mean much the same thing. **To dismiss is simply ruder **and as I would not be rude towards a religious no matter our disagreements, I am not dismissing it. I merely disagree and subscribe to another theological opinion.

*So, they are both rude, you just choose the less ruder of the two? *