Under what cercumstances can a bishop refuse to allow a priest to celebrate the Extraordinary Form (TLM)

[malphono]

A bishop’s power includes regulating the liturgy, so (contra Corsair), he has the authority, for instance, to forbid a priest from attempting to say a Mass he’s incapable of. If a priest’s Latin is too poor, the bishop can forbid him to say Mass in Latin (in either the EF or OF), just like he can forbid a priest from attempting to say Mass in Chinese who doesn’t speak good enough Chinese. Likewise, if a priest had shown no understanding of, or willingness to follow, the rubrics of the EF, the bishop could prevent him from saying it.

Let’s get real here. What priest who is ignorant of Latin and/or has no “understanding or willingness to follow the rubrics of the EF” (as you put it) would even think about offering the EF? For that matter, what priest who doesn’t speak (and read) Chinese would be so hot-to-trot about saying the OF in Chinese that the bishop would have to forbid him from doing so?

The important point is that the bishop’s authority in this regard derives from (1) his power to regulate the liturgy and prevent poor celebration of Mass, not (2) some specific power to exclude the EF, which Summorum Pontificum affirms the bishop does not have.
Summorum Pontificum, however, allows the bishop to prevent any priest from publicly celebrating the EF. Perhaps that is what happened in your case.

Where, exactly, does SP say the latter?

 

[kozlosap]

This particular priest’s Latin is impeccable. He’s said many of the ordinary form masses at our parish all in Latin. He’s quite good at it and has a strong command for the language. He’s also fluent in Spanish and I believe a few other languages. His pronunciation is quite good. I say my rosary in Latin.

I’m curious, when you are reciting outloud in Latin are you thinking in English? (or French or whatever your native tongue is?) It’s quite fascinating to me to learn how different individuals use languages other than their first.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m curious, when you are reciting outloud in Latin are you thinking in English? (or French or whatever your native tongue is?) It’s quite fascinating to me to learn how different individuals use languages other than their first.

In Mass all you have to do is read it off the book. Its not like conversational situations that when you use a second or third language, you’d probably compose your thoughts in your native tongue and then translate. But that still depends on the fluency of the second or third language. English is my second language but at this point I can compose thoughts in my mind in English as well as I can in my native Filipino.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m curious, when you are reciting outloud in Latin are you thinking in English? (or French or whatever your native tongue is?) It’s quite fascinating to me to learn how different individuals use languages other than their first.

Good question. However, one can ask the same question if one recites in English. Or Shakespearean English. Or Ebonics. Does one really think about the words or ideas or the gist or just excercising his vocal chords? The latter does seem to happen during repetitive prayers. Does it really matter which language you “think” in?

But an important part of understanding the Mass is understanding all the bowing, genuflecting, standing on the Epistle/Gospel side, signing of the cross, kissing the altar, keeping finger and thumb together, etc. etc. This is part of the prayer too. Remember praying the Mass is different than reciting and “thinking” a bunch of texts.

 

[laszlo]

The Traditional Latin Mass is called “Tridentine” because that council standardized it and suppressed innovations (or local traditions, to use more favorable language) less than 200 years old. But the alterations made by Trent were pretty much as negligible as the alterations made in 1962.

In the reality there was a chaos in the first half of the 16th Century, similar to what is now. The chaos was either theological and liturgical. The XIX Ecumenical council defined the theology of the Mass. Related to the Liturgy only the attacks against the Roman Canon were rejected, defining that there is no error in the Roman Canon.

Pope St Pius V (who became pope 13 years after the last session of the council finished) cleansed the Roman Liturgy from any previous negative influence and practically ordered it all over the whole Catholic Church. First time in the life of the Church he took the control over the Liturgy from the bishops to the Apostolic See.

St Pius V petrified the mass, outside of the Calendar changes only a few words were changed in the order of the Mass until the Vatican council. St Pius X reformed the Roman Breviary. He also urged the active participation of the laity but he left the Mass unchanged, especially the usage of a dead language, and the definition that the Mass is entirely the affair of the priest with Jesus Christ, the laymen are bystanders, watchers, audience only.

The XXI Ecumenical council defined the theological changes related to the Mass, and also contoured out which changes are desiderable in the Liturgy.

Neither the people facing altar, nor the exclusive vernacular, nor the options in the Canon were part of this desired changes.

As a matter of fact the Apostolic see during the decades lost any control over the Liturgy, it became not even the territory of the bishops, but the control was given to lay innovators or to the lower clergy.

Pope Benedict XVI started the steps to recall the centralized control. Part of it was the Summorum Pontificum, and part of it is the correction of the mistranslations. The positive changes ordered by Vatican II (people are active part of the Mass, vernacular is to be used, Lectionary is to reformed, unnecessary duplications are to be omitted) will stay, and hopefully viewed from the pew the difference between the traditional and new form will be minuscule.

 

[Ad_Pondus_Omniu]

Well in essence this is what happened to the Society of St Pius X in my opinion. The Bishop (In this case a group of Bishops under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome and in accordance with Ecclesia Dei) suppressed the SSPX under the pretense of schism. The liturgical revolution had been a very long time coming and it is only very recently under the Pontificate of Benedict XVI that the Extraordinary Form is again being celebrated freely (supposedly).

That’s where it gets tricky. Many metropolitans and Bishops are staunchly against the celebration of the 1962, so it is simply not advertised and not permitted in some cases. Funny how Bishops will permit rampant abuse of the Novus Ordo but suppress a valid celebration of the TLM.

 

[Cecilianus]

I’m curious, when you are reciting outloud in Latin are you thinking in English? (or French or whatever your native tongue is?) It’s quite fascinating to me to learn how different individuals use languages other than their first.

I find myself thinking some of the words (the one’s I’m more familiar with, especially in prayers like the Gloria and Sanctus) in Latin, but having to mentally stop and translate other words. So, 50-50.

In any other language I might happen to pray in (Greek or Slavonic, whenever they are used in Liturgy) I have to translate.

 

[Cecilianus]

Funny how Bishops will permit rampant abuse of the Novus Ordo but suppress a valid celebration of the TLM.

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too - or even suppress a valid celebration of a Novus Ordo ad orientem in Latin.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well in essence this is what happened to the Society of St Pius X in my opinion. The Bishop (In this case a group of Bishops under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome and in accordance with Ecclesia Dei) suppressed the SSPX under the pretense of schism. The liturgical revolution had been a very long time coming and it is only very recently under the Pontificate of Benedict XVI that the Extraordinary Form is again being celebrated freely (supposedly).

That’s where it gets tricky. Many metropolitans and Bishops are staunchly against the celebration of the 1962, so it is simply not advertised and not permitted in some cases. Funny how Bishops will permit rampant abuse of the Novus Ordo but suppress a valid celebration of the TLM.

Sorry this is not accurate. Not that I want to derail the thread but lets be fair, a canon law was broken which merited the excommunications. It wasn’t for supressing the TLM.

I hope we stop derailing threads with suspicions of grand conspiracy theories, especially ones that are not even related to the thread topic.

 

[ProVobis]

Sorry this is not accurate. Not that I want to derail the thread but lets be fair, a canon law was broken which merited the excommunications. It wasn’t for supressing the TLM.

Actually it was in 1975 there was a suspension of the Archbishop and the priests he ordained solely to say the TLM. Even today the EF is closely associated with a schismatic mentality.

TLM was for all intents and purposes suppressed and all Latin was suppressed from the liturgy. And this suppression was falsely being disseminated as the will of Vatican II.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Where, exactly, does SP say the latter?

The whole document?

SP just states that a secular priest has the right to celebrate the EF privately.

A public Mass is one that is on the schedule of a parish.

 

[MarkThompson]

The whole document?

SP just states that a secular priest has the right to celebrate the EF privately.

A public Mass is one that is on the schedule of a parish.

Yes, except that a religious priest equally has the right to celebrate the EF privately:
In Missis sine populo celebratis, quilibet sacerdos catholicus ritus latini, sive saecularis sive religiosus, uti potest aut Missali Romano a beato Papa Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 edito, aut Missali Romano a Summo Pontifice Paulo VI anno 1970 promulgato . . . .
That is to say,
In Masses celebrated without the people, any Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or religious, can use either the Roman Missal issued by Blessed Pope John XXIII in the year 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Supreme Pontiff Paul VI in the year 1970 . . . .

 

[FAB]

I recently read an article in the Deacon Digest concerning the revisons of the Roman Missal and the history of the development of the liturgy, including the EF.
According to the article there has been a number of changes in the EF even from the point it was first promulgated. So for the purist who keep holding up the current form of the EF as the only way the mass should be celebrated, you made need to start picking which century.

As far as if a bishop can restrict a priest in celebration the EF, it would depend if that priest in familar with that particular liturgy, which is part of the conditions. If the knowledge of the mass is there along with facilities and other considerations then there would not be a reason for the bishop to prohibit it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, except that a religious priest equally has the right to celebrate the EF privately:
In Missis sine populo celebratis, quilibet sacerdos catholicus ritus latini, sive saecularis sive religiosus, uti potest aut Missali Romano a beato Papa Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 edito, aut Missali Romano a Summo Pontifice Paulo VI anno 1970 promulgato . . . .
That is to say,
In Masses celebrated without the people, any Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or religious, can use either the Roman Missal issued by Blessed Pope John XXIII in the year 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Supreme Pontiff Paul VI in the year 1970 . . . .

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.

 

[PbloPicasso]

We can make a number of guesses why, including the usual conspiracy theories regarding people hating Latin, modernism, etc. But the real reason lies with the Bishop. Perhaps he sees something we don’t. He’s responsibility is to care for his Church which is the diocese (each diocese is a particular Church) and thus he needs to prioritize the needs of the flock and of the diocese. Perhaps a TLM isn’t as important as something else. Why not write the Bishop or his office and ask why? You’ll get a better answer instead of the usual guesswork you’ll get here.

The priest requested to say the TLM on his anniversary. It was denied.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I’m curious, when you are reciting outloud in Latin are you thinking in English? (or French or whatever your native tongue is?) It’s quite fascinating to me to learn how different individuals use languages other than their first.

I’m a revert. My father died before he got to see me come home. Our parish was using mass, because of the one priest, during mass and it was beautiful. For the NO or now OF, our Liturgy is beautiful, with few exceptions for the Protestant music included (possibly for the RCIA program). I always wanted to learn Latin and I had problems concentrating on the mysteries and prayers of the Rosary that sometimes get to be mundane and rote. I thought that learning the words in Latin it would improve my ability to meditate upon the mysteries. It actually did. Reciting the prayers in English can easily become babel. I thought that learning the prayers in Latin would also help me later on in Latin during mass. By trying to think in Latin, even though I catch myself jumping to English thinking, it still helps me realize what I’m praying. It helps me and is done to remember my father and his love for traditional Catholicism. It started as a penance in memory of my father, assuming he’s in purgatory.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m a revert. My father died before he got to see me come home. Our parish was using mass, because of the one priest, during mass and it was beautiful. For the NO or now OF, our Liturgy is beautiful, with few exceptions for the Protestant music included (possibly for the RCIA program). I always wanted to learn Latin and I had problems concentrating on the mysteries and prayers of the Rosary that sometimes get to be mundane and rote. I thought that learning the words in Latin it would improve my ability to meditate upon the mysteries. It actually did. Reciting the prayers in English can easily become babel. I thought that learning the prayers in Latin would also help me later on in Latin during mass. By trying to think in Latin, even though I catch myself jumping to English thinking, it still helps me realize what I’m praying. It helps me and is done to remember my father and his love for traditional Catholicism. It started as a penance in memory of my father, assuming he’s in purgatory.

I would say that well over 50-80% of those who heard the Pater Noster chant in the High Mass pre-Vatican II knew it was the Our Father and didn’t have to think English. There was that specialness about it because the Pater Noster wasn’t in normal conversational language. Just as the rest of the Mass. Much indeed was lost in translations.

 

[Cecilianus]

Sorry this is not accurate. Not that I want to derail the thread but lets be fair, a canon law was broken which merited the excommunications. It wasn’t for supressing the TLM.

I hope we stop derailing threads with suspicions of grand conspiracy theories, especially ones that are not even related to the thread topic.

True, but the canon was broken because Rome was refusing to grant him permission to ordain the bishops he needed to run his society. He was excommunicated because he broke the canon, he broke the canon because Rome was trying to stifle the TLM. I’m not trying to excuse or justify schism or disobedience (which I can’t in good conscience do), but like the Orthodox excommunicated in 1054 I have to be sympathetic to the SSPX. The TLM was not very popular with the hierarchy in the 70s and 80s - that’s more of an obvious fact than a “grand conspiracy theory”.

 

[JReducation]

Keep in mind that SP makes it very clear that the freedom to celebrate the EF is for secular priests, not for regular priests. SP makes it very clear that priests who are also consecrated religious must have the permission of their Major Superior. The Major Superior can only grant that permission if the Constitutions of the community allow him to do so. The bishop has no say over what the priest in a religious order celebrates as long as it is not in one of his churches. It then falls under the jurisdiction of the Major Superior. Even in his churches, there are limits to the bishop’s authority over religious.

Additionally, even if the bishop wants the EF celebrated in one of his parishes, if the Major Superior does not authorize it, the bishop does not have the jurisdiction to overrule the Major Superior. Along the same lines, if the Major Superior wants the EF celebrated and the bishop does not want it in one of his parishes, the Major Superior cannot impose it on the parish.

Both Major Superiors and Bishops have the power to discourage the celebration of the EF. Only Major Superiors have the authority to demand it of their priests. Bishops cannot demand it of of any priest, secular or regular.

A bishop who has a problem with the EF should contact Rome to see if they can help. This also was in SP. At times there may be a problem, because of schedules, lack of space or a shortage of priests who want to celebrate it or know how to do it correctly. In those cases, the bishop can put it on hold and should ask for assistance from the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

Obviously, there are some logistics that a bishop can work out on his own, given some time. He does not have to run to Rome to solve every problem that comes up with the EF. At times there are fault on both sides. Sometimes, the bishop does not move on the request. Other times, the laity demands an immediate solution and response, which the bishop cannot deliver. There has to be a give and take on both parts and there has to be patience.

To the best of my knowledge, most religious superiors are doing what they can to pass legislation that will allow their priests to celebrate the EF. Some religious communities already have such legistlation in place and some do not. Those that do not have it in place, seem to be showing good will and presenting it at their general chapters for approval. Remember, if you belong to a parish run by a religious community you are subject to the decisions of their general chapter.

The fact that you are a layperson does not come into play. The rules and constitutions of the order cannot be changed without 2/3 vote at a general chapter. A general chapter cannot touch the rules and constitutions without the permission of the Pontiff. Once that’s done, the Pontiff has to approve the changes. If you belong to a parish run by Order X and the general chapter says “no EF”, you may not have it, because the priests who belong to that order may not celebrate it. As I said, I have seen an effort to introduce it at general chapters and to get it approved, when necessary. There are not that many orders that have to get it approved.

As far as diocesan clergy is concerned, they simply have to coordinate with the local pastor who must coordinate with the bishop. Coordinating is not the same as asking for permission. The permission has been granted. But this does not mean that every priest can thumb his nose at his pastor or bishop. This was not the Pope’s intent. There has to be coordination of resources. The Holy Father left this open when he spells out that there has to be a sufficient number of persons who want it and when he leaves it open to the priests to decline. The Holy Father did not say that they have to celebrate it. He encouraged it, not ordered it.

All of these factors come into play. Many people don’t know all of these details and they get frustrated. It’s understandable that one get’s frustrated, if one does not understand. We have to keep the lines of communication open so that everyone understands what’s going on and why.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

The priest requested to say the TLM on his anniversary. It was denied.

The point of my post was we know what happened, but we don’t know why. All people here can offer is speculation on the reason. Lets be fair to the Bishop.