P
PbloPicasso
Guest
From what dark place did you pull those stats from? You’re not one of those guys that makes it up as you go, are you?
Under what cercumstances can a bishop refuse to allow a priest to celebrate the Extraordinary Form (TLM)
- Status
P
PbloPicasso
Guest
I have to admit that I have issues with all of the politics dealing with subduing an ancient mass. St. John Chrysostom was excommunicated for orthodoxy from what I’ve read. I don’t mean to encourage anyone to act like they’re to be compared to such a great Saint. I just have to wonder because my father told me in the 90’s that the real Catholic Church is dead. I was preaching to him about “the truth”, knucklehead that I was, and he told me that the bible was written by a bunch of monks. I have no idea what he was talking about. Point is that nothing in my life, because of all these scandals (liturgy, sexual revolution, gay/lesbian, women clergy pushers, just a symbol and other outrageous things) kept me in constant tourmoil and not one priest would take the time to exercise prudence in educating me or pointing to orthodox Catholic teaching. As much as I like our current preacher/pastor, I have several issues that he allows to take place and am told that he does not have the right to do the things he does. But when I ask, he gives me a load of … lets just say…information. Worthless information that is supposedly the bishops orders.
I thought the tabernacle would certainly make it to the center of the other modern churches in our area but it hasn’t. I personally blame it on the bishop and see it as being unfaithful to the Magesterium (spelling?) because I’ve been told that this is where the Holy Father says they belong, not off in a side room. No, I don’t scandalize anyone. I just don’t understand. We’re like brand new Catholics that are seeing this absolute chaos and have no idea what to say about it to our huge active Protestant families that make fun of us behind, and in some cases to our face, about the Catholic lameness. And anytime I’ve ever tried to bring it up on here, I’ve been slammed down for being disrespectful. My thoughts are "what if over night your family turned on you and left you out in the cold and when you turned to the church you gave up your family for they simply said “suck it up” or “shut up” or “you can’t say that” or whatever.
The point is that it is completely insensitve to what we sacrificed and all we hear is lame responses rooted in “so what” or “whatever” responses. It’s cold. Just because its the norm doesn’t mean it should be allowed or promoted. We were told I RCIA that 90% of cradle Catholics without a doubt do not know their Catholic faith. But when we say something elsewhere we get slamdunked and shut out of parish life. It’s amazing the hypocrisy Catholics are willing to live with. Saying that the clergy has so much authority seems to feed right into what we were taught to be Clericalism, a heresy. I’m all ears if anyone wants to address this chaos theory sounding subject. Sometimes I feel I made a mistake and maybe should consider the Eastern Orthodox Church that goes back to the beginning too. Where’s the sanity?
J
JReducation
Guest
You guys are not talking about the same thing. Constantine is talking about the excommunication of the SSPX bishops and ProVobis is talking about the belief that the TLM had been suppressed.
If you read Light of the World Pope Benedict explains this very clearly. The excommunications were due to the fact that the bishops “had broken with the primacy” Those are his exact words. “The excommunication had nothing to do with the Liturgy or Vatican II.” Those too are his exact words.
The “mistake regarding the use of the Missal of 1962 was the assumption that it was abrogated by the Missal of Paul VI” those too are his exact words.
They are both fruits, but they are apples and oranges. There were two wongs, but not related to each other. No one was excommunicated for celebrating according to the 1962 missal and the 1962 missal was not suppressed by Paul Vi’s issue of a later missal. The two missals were to be alternatives.
NOW, we have the situation where Pope Benedict has changed the rules. Pope Paul VI never said that one was the ordinary and the other the extraordinary form. Pope Benedict has made that rule. That is a new rule. According to the new rule, the newer missal is the ordinary form, which in Canon Law means that it is the norm. The older missal is the extraordinary, which in Canon Law means that it is not to be the usual and customary, but is to be the exception. In other words, you cannot have every mass at every parish in a diocese in the EF, because it would cease to be extraordinary.
I know that some people love the former nomenclature NO and TLM. But Pope Benedict has reworded it. We have to learn to think in terms of ordinary and extraordinary if we are to understand how the two forms are intended to co-exist. Those who refuse to shift from NO and TLM to EF and OF are always going to have a problem with the older missal being less available, because they are not thinking of the older missal as extraordinary. However, that’s not the fault of the bishop or the Holy Father. That’s the problem or failure of the individual who has not made the shift from NO and TLM to OF and EF.
The way it looks right now, the Church has no intention of replacing the OF with the EF. Nor does the Church appreciate it when we refer to the two forms as distinct rites. They are two forms of the same Roman Rite.
As far as the bishop is concerned, we also have to stop thinking in adversarial terms. It’s becoming almost an epidemic among some Catholics to think that the bishops have it out for the Catholic laity or are always up to something sinister. Just because a bishop does not appreciate the EF does not make him sinister or an enemy of the people. He is a human being and has his opinions and points of view, just as every poster here has his or her opinion and point of view. The tables can be turned around and the bishops can say that every Traditionalist is sinister and is his enemy. Most of us know that this is not true.
People are people, whether they are bishops or laity. The sooner that we being to see people as human beings with strengths and weaknesses, preferences and opinions, and accept that human beings have reasons for their way of thinking, the sooner we can get past the divisions and begin to dialogue and heal the rifts in society, not just in the Church.
I can give a perfect example. It has nothing to do with the EF, but it’s a good example. I asked my bishop for permission to start a particular group to minister to men who are struggling with abortion. His response was to wait. Some people around me jumped up and down alleging that the bishop did not care about pro-life issues. Guess what! Three months later it turned out that he was very sick and was going to retire prematurely. He knew this at the time that I asked. But it was not public information and there was no need to make it public until the Vatican accepted his resignation. All those people who read conspiracy into the first response began to make excuses for themselves instead of admitting that they had judged this man.
On another occasion I asked my superior for permission to return to the missions. He said “No.” When I asked if I might inquire why not, he said, “No you may not.” I could have read all kinds of negatives into it. As it turned out, a bishop had asked for a theologian to serve in his diocese. However, there was a glitch. I’m an STD, but I’m not a priest. This had to be worked out with the bishop. The bishop had never worked with an STD who is not a priest.
As it turned out, I did get sent to work in that diocese for three-years. I hated every minute of it. But I can only express my opinion when I have permission to do so. Therefore, no one knew that I hated the assignment. The point is that had I read a negative into the word, “NO” or “No you may not ask why not” I would have been very unhappy and made others very unhappy. As it turned out, I was flattered that I was asked to train priests.
My point, let’s back off the negative thinking. Human beings are just that . . . human beings. We are all sinners and most of us are trying to do the best we can with our limitations. Let’s begin to pray that the other person will be able to do what is best despite his limitations and that we will appreciate what the other person cannot do for us.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The Holy Spirit has spoken through you again Bro JR. Thanks for the wonderful words. We should put trust in our priests and bishops above our own desires for the Church, always.
P
ProVobis
Guest
JR, factually you are correct. No disputes there.
I don’t want to sound like I’m mixing apples and oranges again, so let’s look at it another way. There was much misinformation being disseminated after Vatican II regarding meat abstinence, conscience and artificial birth control, Latin suppression, ecumenism, etc. This is hardly conspiracy theory. Much of this misinformation has been so reinforced and ingrained that it’s going to have to take years, perhaps decades for these new “rules” to be absorbed to form the mindset that Pope Benedict intends. Much of this will be even tougher as most Catholics don’t even attend Mass and Catholic schools are too expensive so who’s going to tell them this? All they keep hearing when the return to the old Mass is mentioned by the news media, is that some “schismatic” group is behind it in the same sentence. Doesn’t matter to them whether the excommunications were in 1975 or 1988.
Furthermore, not only the Latin Mass is still taboo in many areas, but people freak out if Latin is mentioned at all in their own Mass, never mind the numerous documents and statements issued by the Vatican trying to restore or preserve its use in the Mass. Pope Benedict, Cardinal Arinze, Cardinal Ranjith, and others are doing what they can to change this but it obviously can’t be changed overnight, especially when the convenience of all-English is being reinforced at every Mass. An analogy: who appreciates the beauty and healthful benefits of the stairwells when elevators are available?
L
laszlo
Guest
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16summorumpontificum.htm
The ‘sine populo’ (without people) is to be interpreted as not scheduled for the faithful, and not without any presence of the faithful. The law requires at least a server
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I know this is off topic but why does the SSPX need bishops to run its Society when no other religious community does? Except maybe Opus Dei but they are a special case.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
See Br Jay’s post which is #39 in this thread. You can carry on this discussion with him if you wish.
I stand by what I said, a regular priest needs the approval of his superior to celebrate the EF Mass.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Many are so anti-Latin that they wouldn’t have believed it had I used 0-100% in my estimated range.From what dark place did you pull those stats from? You’re not one of those guys that makes it up as you go, are you?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Many are so anti-Latin that they wouldn’t have believed it had I used 0-100% in my estimated range.
Nice post. Now any who disagree with you or ask for a source for your “stats” is branded as being “anti-Latin”.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Because the older missal ISN’T extraordinary. For over 1500 years it was the only the Roman Rite ever known, and the only expression of the Faith for most Catholics. To call the Roman Rite the “extraordinary form”, and for something which one must frankly admit - whether they like it or not - is a historical aberration to be called the “Ordinary Form” is nothing other than an abuse of language imposed for propaganda purposes.
There’s nothing ordinary about the Ordinary Form except that it’s what’s been used by almost everyone in the past 40 years of the Church’s 2000-year existence, and nothing extraordinary about the Extraordinary Form except the rarity with which one finds it today.
This is not to judge between the merits of each or to pit one against the other - I’m just pointing out the historical impropriety of the terminology. One is how the Roman Rite had always been done, and the other is an aberration from what the Roman Rite had always looked like, and the “EF” versus “OF” language gets it backwards.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
So that they are not subject to the diocesan authority which might have refused them permission to say the Latin Mass in the diocese.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
It is the EF because that is what the Church calls it.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Their bishops are not diocesen ordinaries so they do not get to play around in another bishops diocese without permission. That would have been the fact had the Archbishop got what he wanted (he was going to get a bishop but chose to defy Rome and his agreement to wait).
A bishop is not an ordinary without a diocese. Just look at auxillary bishops.
Religious communities do not need bishops to run them, the superiors are ordinaries. One thing I can see with having a bishop as the head of a religious community is that it takes the picking of the superiors away from the members of the community and gives it to the bishop who heads the community.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
The SSPX would have been a personal prelature - its priests would not have been subject to the local dioceses.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
It was not set up that way to begin with.
Also a personal prelature is subject to the local diocese. The local bishop has to allow a personal prelature to work within his diocese.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Oh.
L
laszlo
Guest
I am not familiar with the regular of all religious order, and do not intended to contest weather the vow of obedience requires previous approval for any church related action of a religious priest or not. I guess some orders may require it others give larger independence; the superior is bound by the regula of the order.
I only contested the argument that
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByzCath View Post
**The key here is “without the people” **so a regular priest (which is what a religious priest is called) can celebrate the EF but not with people. To celebrate with people he will need the approval of his superiors.
showing that the Summorum Pontificium and later documents defined the without people in the sense that the Mass is not scheduled for people.
For religious the Summorum Pontificium has a requirement
Art. 3. Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or “community” celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.
This seems to exclude the non conventual masses.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
From what I understand of any and all orders is that those who become part of the order give their lives to God and His Church. So anything they do is at the direction of the Church through their superiors. I don’t think there is any order that would have a larger degree of independence. Perhaps any independence that we percieve is already something that is granted to them by their superior.
I agree. From what I recall, it says the priest may do so without permission if a Mass is private. And people may ask to join the priest for this private Mass. But of course the intention here should be not to circumvent the authority of the Bishop to regulate Liturgy in his diocese. A priest cannot go wink wink with the congregation and do private Masses with the intention of making it a regularly scheduled but unofficial (and unpublished) Mass.
L
laszlo
Guest
The religious men whom I knew in my life, always said that the hardest of the vows is the obedience. This mean that the humility, which is required behind the obedience is not always perfect, and they are satisfied if the do what is required.
The Regula of St Benedict interprets the obedience as following commands. Permission is required only for breaking the silence, leaving the diner table, and making artistic works; so not for every event of the life.
(you may search for the word permission) here
ccel.org/ccel/benedict/rule2/files/rule2.html
As for the rule of the obedience think over the example:
Religious priest under the Regula of St Benedict works in a parish. There is another priest who celebrates the scheduled Mass, and the pastor of the parish has no objection against the TLM. Can the Benedictine priest celebrate the non scheduled Mass in the old form without the explicit permission of his superior; or there is anything either in the Summorum Pontificium and explanation or in the Regula which suggest otherwise?
- Status