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

[ConstantineTG]

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?

Even without vows, obedience always is the hardest. Whether its parents, spouses, bosses, the state (law), etc.

I don’t know the real answer. My guess is if one is to do something that has not been approved in the past, then one has to gain permission to do so.

I just realized we crossed threads. This is discussed here → forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=526848&page=3

OraLabora stated in that thread that even to run an errand they would have to ask for permission or blessing from the superior, what more of saying a Mass? It seems every task of some significance requires prior approval.

 

[JReducation]

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?

As my superior always says. Good spirituality is practical. We are going to have to live with Liturgy in the vernacular for a long time, maybe centuries. The first thing that we have to accept is the fact that Latin may never become the most frequently used language in liturgy. However, the Church does not say that it has to be. She protects its place as the official language of the liturgy. As long as you have some liturgies celebrated in Latin, it is preserved.

It is also true that those who believe that the EF is a mass for schismatics are seriously mistaken. But I believe that with time, this will pass. Those who subscribe to the EF can help calm these fears and suspiscions by becoming active participants in their parishes. One of the situations that we have in our diocese is that the parishioners who attend the two EF parishes do not participate in any activities or ministries outside of those parishes. For example, every January we hold walks for life around the diocese to raise funds for the diocesan Respect Life Ministry. The ministry runs five pregnancy centers, four retreats for post-abortive men and women, six-chastity days at different high schools and middle schools, medical, food, and children supplies to needy parents in crisis pregnancies. The folks from the EF parishes will not attend the walks for life, because the liturgy is in the OF. Some of us have tried, even their priests, to persuade them to attend these events and the mass that goes with them.

There was a woman who was dear soul in the diocese. She had been involved in all kinds of apostolates. Hundreds of people went to pray at her wake. One of the daughters was in charge of the funeral mass. She arranged to have it at one of the EF parishes. Well she used the unfortunate expression when inviting the guests at her mother’s wake and I quote: “The funeral mass will be at X parish. Women must wear a veil, sleeves, no pants and men must wear long slacks and no sneakers, because our mass is very orthodox.” That raised some eye-brows and hurt some feelings. I sat there with my jaw down to the edge of my habit.

Eventually, I hope, people will not make such foolish statements such as “EF are schismatics” or “we’re more orthodox than you are” and that will help dispel the myths. I think another thing that may help dispel the myths about the EF being schismatic is the less that the Traditionalists identify themselves with the SSPX and SSPV the less people will think of the EF as schismatic. I always encourage Traditionalists to avoid the label and simply say, “I like attending the EF mass because I can pray better or because it helps my spiritual life” and leave it at that. I encourage those suspiscious souls to look at some of their behaviors at the OF and see what they have to correct. There is a beautiful form of the OF Even with the options for different prayers and different readings and so forth, they can be beautiful masses.

My community celebrates only the OF. We’re not allowed the EF. But it’s a beautiful OF. If any of you watch EWTN, the friars are allowed to celebrate the EF for the laity. I’m not sure if they have permission to celebrate it for the community. However, their OF celebration is very beautiful. The folks who attend the chapel there are equally comfortable with the EF and OF. I always point to those examples for those who prefer the OF as good examples of beautiful liturgies in the Ordinary Form.

There is a lot of work to be done all around. We need to get to work.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

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?

The the four rules that exist in the Roman Church: Benedictine, Franciscan, Carmelite, and Augustinian do not stand alone. They all have a constitution that goes with the rule. The constitution is what governs the community, not the rule itself. The rule is the skeleton. A religious who vows to follow one of these rules is bound by the vow to follow the constitution.

The constitution will spell out when one has to ask for permission, not the rule. The rule simple spells out that one has to obey under this or that circumstance. The constitution cannot take away what the rule says, but it does add to what the rule says and also fills in the blanks for questions that are not addressed by the writer of the rule.

For example, the Franciscan Rule says that the friars shall obey without question. It also says that the friars are bound to obey Francis, even after his death. It was the intention of St. Francis to maintain absolute control over his sons and daughers even after he was gone. This raised questions. The constitutions were written to say that the major superior has a direct line of succesion to Francis. He who obeys the superior obeys Francis.

When the SP came out, these questions were taken into consideration. That’s why the Holy Father in SP and in the letter that follows clarifies that the Major Superior is the final authority according to the law of the insititute. I believe he uses the phrase “common law” or something like this. In any case, the major superiors of the orders asked for a clarification. The clarification was that the constitution takes precedence over SP, because it was not the intention of SP to overrule what had been canonically approved by the popes (the constitutions of each order).

To answer your question, if the constitution of an abbey says that the abbot has the authority to prohibit or that an ordained monk (not all monks are priests) has to ask for permission, then that takes precedense over SP. SP was not written to overrule the founders and their successors. Also the rules and constitutions were canonically approved by the popes and have been sealed by papal bulls. Until the pope explicitly changes the rule or the constitutions, they remain in effect.

We, religious, do whatever the constitution allows us to do. For example, in my community, we do not go outside without permission unless it’s for work. We do not use the EF without permission. No one can become a priest without permission from his brothers, not even the superior can give him permission to be ordained, even if there is a willing bishop. The superior must submit the request for Holy Orders a council of brothers. That council may deny the request on the grounds that it is not the person’s vocation to be a priest, but it is the Will of God that the man be a religious until death. The same works with such things as the mass. If the constitution allows you to make that decision on your own, you can do so. If it says that you must ask for permission, you must do that too. It is the constitution that has the final voice, not the rule.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cecilianus]

There was a woman who was dear soul in the diocese. She had been involved in all kinds of apostolates. Hundreds of people went to pray at her wake. One of the daughters was in charge of the funeral mass. She arranged to have it at one of the EF parishes. Well she used the unfortunate expression when inviting the guests at her mother’s wake and I quote: “The funeral mass will be at X parish. Women must wear a veil, sleeves, no pants and men must wear long slacks and no sneakers, because our mass is very orthodox.” That raised some eye-brows and hurt some feelings. I sat there with my jaw down to the edge of my habit.

Perhaps I’m missing the tone of her comment over the internet, but I honestly don’t see anything wrong with her words themselves. The dress code she gave is very reasonable, and the reason for it is the orthodoxy of the Liturgy in question. As long as she wasn’t intending to make a snide remark about other parishes, she was simply stating a fact about the orthodoxy of her Liturgy without saying anything about anyone else (just as St. Athanasius never really went out and attacked heresy, but stayed true to the Faith himself and was attacked for it).

I visited a Liturgy at an Armenian Apostolic church once. Any woman who came in without wearing a mantilla was given one before she was permitted to receive Communion. Nobody said anything about other people with different practices, but they were very insistent on practicing orthodoxy themselves, and were I a female to present herself for Communion (nota bene: actually I’m male, and being Catholic I abstained from Communion there) I would have been made to wear a mantilla whether I was a regular parishioner or not.

 

[Ad_Pondus_Omniu]

Women must wear a veil, sleeves, no pants and men must wear long slacks and no sneakers, because our mass is very orthodox.

Bless her soul. I honestly think much of the clothes individuals wear today to Mass are a travesty. Skirts below the knee and sleeves down below the elbows, collarbones, backs, necks, and heads covered for women. Collars, knees, necks covered for men, who should always wear a jacket and tie.
Just a thought.

 

[JReducation]

The point that I was trying to make was that if it was unnecessary to tell a group of Catholics “our mass is very orthodox”. The dress code is fine. But the “orthodox” part of the statement is what triggers a knee-jerk reaction from many people.

That woiuld be like me telling the Xaverian Brothers, “We wear a habit, because we’re very orthodox.” That’s unnecessary and it will not do anything to help anyone. If I simply say, “We wear a habit” and leave it at that, no one will have a negative reaction to that. It’s a fact. We wear a habit.

If you have a dress code at your parish and you tell your invited guests that there is a dress code, no one will react to that. It’s a fact. Parish X has a dress code. When you tag on “ouir mass is orthodox,” that can be taken as “your mass is not, because you don’t have these dress codes” or some other way.

Fortunately, the pastor of the parish was present and came to the rescue. His statement was, “I’d like to clarify, before there is a misunderstanding. Our mass is no more and no less orthodox than the Ordinary Form, but our parish is very conservative.” That made everyone feel much more comfortable.

Her tone was not rude at all. She was very sweet. It was her choice of words that triggered a reaction and prompted the pastor to come to the rescue. Later, he commented to the clergy and religious who were present that the choice of words was unfortunate and how he tries very hard to discourage his parishioners from saying that their mass is orthodox as opposed to the Ordinary Form in other parishes. “But they don’t get it,” he said.

People just don’t get it. I’ve had to deal with the other side. I’ve had to discourage people from associating every EF mass with the SSPX or the SSPV. Unfortunate use of words happens all the time. Words like “schismatic” and “orthodox” are thrown about too liberally when they are unnecessary. In which case, they do more harm than good. Let’s not distract from the gift with words that are unnecessary and do not inspire charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Bless her soul. I honestly think much of the clothes individuals wear today to Mass are a travesty. Skirts below the knee and sleeves down below the elbows, collarbones, backs, necks, and heads covered for women. Collars, knees, necks covered for men, who should always wear a jacket and tie.
Just a thought.

We cannot make those rules universal because of many factors, some of which are: culture, climate, economy, history and resources.

I’ll give you a simple example. I worked in the Amazon for three-years among a group of indegenous people called the Colorados. They are a culture that is about 3,000 years old. Dressing up for them is applying a red paste to their hair, hence the term Colorados, a very tight wrap for the men that resembles a skirt and very beautiful and elaborate jewelry.

If you tell them to wear a European shirt and slacks they will slap you in the face. They feel very strongly that the Europeans hurt their people and their culture. They are very defensive of their customs. They take the imposition of European customs as condescension. As they become more educated, they become much more protective of their culture and customs. Yet, they are the most devout and prayerful people I have ever met. I found their faith to be simple and fervent. They have a great love for the Blessed Mother, St. Francis and St. Dominic. That’s because it was Franciscans and Dominicans who protected them from the Conquistadores.

As you travel through the jungle you find niches built to Our Lady or to Francis or Dominic. Their very tiny, about 24" and they always have flowers and sometimes candles. People stop to pray on their way from point A to point B.

We have to be careful with the rules that we impose on people. Good spirituality is always rational and makes sense.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cecilianus]

We cannot make those rules universal because of many factors, some of which are: culture, climate, economy, history and resources.

I’ll give you a simple example. I worked in the Amazon for three-years among a group of indegenous people called the Colorados. They are a culture that is about 3,000 years old. Dressing up for them is applying a red paste to their hair, hence the term Colorados, a very tight wrap for the men that resembles a skirt and very beautiful and elaborate jewelry.

If you tell them to wear a European shirt and slacks they will slap you in the face. They feel very strongly that the Europeans hurt their people and their culture. They are very defensive of their customs. They take the imposition of European customs as condescension. As they become more educated, they become much more protective of their culture and customs. Yet, they are the most devout and prayerful people I have ever met. I found their faith to be simple and fervent. They have a great love for the Blessed Mother, St. Francis and St. Dominic. That’s because it was Franciscans and Dominicans who protected them from the Conquistadores.

As you travel through the jungle you find niches built to Our Lady or to Francis or Dominic. Their very tiny, about 24" and they always have flowers and sometimes candles. People stop to pray on their way from point A to point B.

We have to be careful with the rules that we impose on people. Good spirituality is always rational and makes sense.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I don’t disagree with you, but I do think that the point being made definitely holds true for the Roman Rite in the United States.

 

[PbloPicasso]

We cannot make those rules universal because of many factors, some of which are: culture, climate, economy, history and resources.

I’ll give you a simple example. I worked in the Amazon for three-years among a group of indegenous people called the Colorados. They are a culture that is about 3,000 years old. Dressing up for them is applying a red paste to their hair, hence the term Colorados, a very tight wrap for the men that resembles a skirt and very beautiful and elaborate jewelry.

If you tell them to wear a European shirt and slacks they will slap you in the face. They feel very strongly that the Europeans hurt their people and their culture. They are very defensive of their customs. They take the imposition of European customs as condescension. As they become more educated, they become much more protective of their culture and customs. Yet, they are the most devout and prayerful people I have ever met. I found their faith to be simple and fervent. They have a great love for the Blessed Mother, St. Francis and St. Dominic. That’s because it was Franciscans and Dominicans who protected them from the Conquistadores.

As you travel through the jungle you find niches built to Our Lady or to Francis or Dominic. Their very tiny, about 24" and they always have flowers and sometimes candles. People stop to pray on their way from point A to point B.

We have to be careful with the rules that we impose on people. Good spirituality is always rational and makes sense.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Fr. JR, I appreciate your response. It’s very awesome to hear culture stories. I believe many of us understand you sentements and agree. However, we are not talking about an obscure tribe in a foreign culture that does not have European influence. We’re talking about people who should know better than to wear skirts that scare me when the wearer bows to go forward to read. I’ve had to block my view of some women that seem to think “V” necks are okay or no backing that goes all the way down… well lets just say “south”. I’m a married man and have children. One of my teens has to turn his head as well. My next in line is only 9 and already has to watch his eyes. He feels “funny” when he sees these half naked women, wearing scandalous attire. I don’t believe that the Miami crowd, other than a willingness to throw their sexuality to the son is the problem. They are not an obscure culture and the bishops have every right and obligation to make restrictions. Go back to the days when the faithful that came prepared to receive our Lord and savior were allowed into the Nave (or whatever the particular place). Kind of an extreme reactions, but it gets the point across that many people today refuse/rebel to do what they should do. After I first married my wife, I slowly gathered all of the clothing that she wore that embarrassed me and asked her to toss them, but only after I bought her beautiful conservative clothing in their place. She still looked absolutely gorgious (Victoria Secret model look) but covered the body respectful of herself and others around her.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t disagree with you, but I do think that the point being made definitely holds true for the Roman Rite in the United States.

Fr. JR, I appreciate your response. It’s very awesome to hear culture stories. I believe many of us understand you sentements and agree. However, we are not talking about an obscure tribe in a foreign culture that does not have European influence. We’re talking about people who should know better than to wear skirts that scare me when the wearer bows to go forward to read. I’ve had to block my view of some women that seem to think “V” necks are okay or no backing that goes all the way down… well lets just say “south”. I’m a married man and have children. One of my teens has to turn his head as well. My next in line is only 9 and already has to watch his eyes. He feels “funny” when he sees these half naked women, wearing scandalous attire. I don’t believe that the Miami crowd, other than a willingness to throw their sexuality to the son is the problem. They are not an obscure culture and the bishops have every right and obligation to make restrictions. Go back to the days when the faithful that came prepared to receive our Lord and savior were allowed into the Nave (or whatever the particular place). Kind of an extreme reactions, but it gets the point across that many people today refuse/rebel to do what they should do. After I first married my wife, I slowly gathered all of the clothing that she wore that embarrassed me and asked her to toss them, but only after I bought her beautiful conservative clothing in their place. She still looked absolutely gorgious (Victoria Secret model look) but covered the body respectful of herself and others around her.

I agree compeltely with both of you. People need to learn to dress, period, not just for mass. Rather than spell out what kind of blouse, slacks or shoes. The idea that has to be taught to our children is modesty and decorum. To say that a female has to wear a skirt for mass, but can wear a business suit (slacks and blazer) for the office is inconsistent. There is nothing wrong with such a look. However, no one should be dressed inmodestly in any situation: work, play, church or supermarket.

Another note, which is an aside. Let’s be careful to avoid such terms as “obscure” and “tribes”. That’s a very American way of talking, which often gets others to look at us as parrochial. There is much about our own American culture that is obscure to others and to us. I’m from the South. I bet that there are many people on these threads who have no idea how we live, talk and what we value in the South. To some people on these threads our way of dressing, talking, our humor, and even some of our values are very strange. The truth is that there is no such thing as an “American Culture”. We are very different by regions. I remember being assigned to Boston and feeling that I had just left the USA.

I was assigned to Rome for six-years and it is very different from us. If you tell the Romans to wear a shirt and tie they look at you as if you had just grown a second head. However, they would expect you to wear leather shoes and think that you’re goofy if you wear flip flops. To them, that’s very American or if you wear shorts in summer. Only teens wear shorts in Rome, regardless of the heat. Trust me, their heat is horrible.

I also found that countries like Italy, the USA, France, Spain, Germany and the UK are like several countries politically bound together, but not really one people. Obscure is a very subjective word. I will never forget the difference between our friars in Assis, Milan and Rome. They don’t even speak the same language. It’s Italian, but it’s very different from one region to the other. What was more interesting was that just like Americans, one region hates the other and just like us, one region thinks that its way of thinking and doing things should dominate.

That takes me back to keep it simple, modest, practical, and becoming. St. Clare wrote this in her rule when describing her nun’s habit. She never gave them one habit. Each house was to adopt a form of dress that met these requirements. I think they work for everyone. St. Clare’s idea would actually work for us in the USA. Her fear was imposing the spirit and customs of Assisi on the nuns in other parts of Europe. Already, in the 1200s, Clare of Assis used the expression, “The nuns shall dress according to the culture, climate, resources, customs and history of the region provided that their religious garb is modest, simple, practical and becoming.” I would use Clare’s rule for everyone. It works. I have never seen a Poor Clare inmodestly dressed. Trust me, I’ve seen over 100 varieties of Poor Clare habits. Just go to Italy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

The folks from the EF parishes will not attend the walks for life, because the liturgy is in the OF. Some of us have tried, even their priests, to persuade them to attend these events and the mass that goes with them.

JR, with due respect, I think this is an unfair characterization. There ARE “EF people” who do attend “OF” pro-life events as there are “OF-only” people who attend such events at an EF-only parish. By the way, you’ll probably hear the strongest anti-abortion rhetoric from an SSPX priest. I would imagine probably as much from a (Lutheran) Missouri Synod minister as well. As well as from their congregations.

My community celebrates only the OF. We’re not allowed the EF. But it’s a beautiful OF. If any of you watch EWTN, the friars are allowed to celebrate the EF for the laity. I’m not sure if they have permission to celebrate it for the community. However, their OF celebration is very beautiful.

JR, there are Latin OF Masses at St. John Cantius in Chicago that many here on the fora would easily die for. (Men-run parish, responses heavily encouraged, enthusiasm for the Mass, chant, two readings, COTT, beautiful organ music arrangements, etc.) I’ve also attended a Latin OF Mass at a Cistercian parish which has Polish readings and sermon. In fact, when I called them to find out if the Mass is the EF or OF, I was told, “Nie mówi po angielsku” (We don’t speak English.) I was sold.

Those EWTN priests you mentioned, by the way, received their EF training at St. John Cantius. I’ve heard one of them speak there.

 

[Judge_Mental]

I think traditionalists are scandalised and so don’t want to participate in wider parish activities. They are shell-shocked.

A Mass presented as a happy get-together will be more likely to be attended by casually-dressed people. You feel uncomfortable if you are not formally dressed when it’s presented very formally and most attending are formally dressed,.

Mass is Heaven brought to Earth. When all present act as if that were true, you’ll get public piety.

A bishop forbidding his priest from saying an ancient, approved Mass is a funny/sad pass to come to.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Actually, this particular priest is on loan to our diocese. He’s a Third Order Franciscan Friar. I found it sas to hear the bishop deny his request. However, he did obey and that is what he should do.

 

[JReducation]

I think traditionalists are scandalised and so don’t want to participate in wider parish activities. They are shell-shocked.

A Mass presented as a happy get-together will be more likely to be attended by casually-dressed people. You feel uncomfortable if you are not formally dressed when it’s presented very formally and most attending are formally dressed,.

Mass is Heaven brought to Earth. When all present act as if that were true, you’ll get public piety.

A bishop forbidding his priest from saying an ancient, approved Mass is a funny/sad pass to come to.

The bold is mine. The priest in question is not a secular. He’s a brother. He belongs to the Franciscan Brothers of Penance, usually called TOR.

We, have no right to do anything in any diocese without the bishop’s permission and that of our Major Superior. We must have both permissions. The difference is that the bishop cannot retract his permission once he gives it. The Major Superior can. Bishops have limited authority over religious. That’s one good reason why bishops do not give religious permissions very readily. Once they give it, if they retract it, they are in violation of Canon Law. It’s called suppression. Bishops are not allowed to suppress religious. Before a bishop gives a religious permission to function in his diocese he has to be very careful. A bishop can suppress a secular priest, but he cannot suppress a regular priest, a brother, a nun, a sister or the Secular Franciscans. They are protected by the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

The Franciscan, on the other hand, may never act contrary to the will of anyone in authority. He may never ask questions. He may never disagree unless he is given permission to disagree. He may never appeal, unless the law if violated. He may never doubt the good-will of the person in authority. We are only to obey without thinking and questioning. Only in matters of sin, may we disobey. In that case, it’s not disobedience. But it gets tricky. We may not say that we believe something is a sin. It has to be something that the Church has defined as a sin.

I can’t say that I’m going to celebrate the EF, because I believe it is a sin to deny people the right to the EF. The Church has not defined it as a sin, nor has the Church said that I have the obligation to provide the EF. Therefore, I have no right to make such a claim in order to disobey the bishop or the Major Superior.

In this case, the friar has no choice but to submit and to state that the bishop is right and he is wrong. Or he can choose to say nothing. The rule that St. Francis wrote for the Third Order commands them to obey whether authority is right or wrong under penalty of excommunication if they disobey.

There are many little things that most lay people do not know about. We don’t usually share it, because these things do not come up in everyday situations. But there are all kinds of rules and some are particular to a diocese or an institute.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hadrianus]

I haven’t read the relevant legislation recently, but I don’t think any superior, bishop, abbot etc, can forbid a priest from celebrating either the OF or the EF privately. Canon Law also states that every priest has a right to celebrate mass individually, an also always has the right to celebrate in Latin.

On the other hand, a bishop can regulate the public liturgy in his diocese and can order a priest to celebrate only one form of mass in publicly accessible places. Also any religious superior can prohibit one of his subjects from celebrating mass in a given place. Thus bishops and superiors can prevent the EF from being said in places in which the faithful could participate.
I know of one case at the moment where this is the situation.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Br. JR, based on what you’ve identified I now believe I understand why the priest was not allowed. That must be the reason. I must have caught him venting just after he found out he was being denied. He was originally okayed and then he was denied. My guess is that may be why he was upset. I believe he did not act properly, however, having just returned to the Catholic faith I really didn’t understand. This happened about almost 2 years ago. I know that the priest is still in the area but assigned to a different parish.

It sounds like the religious priest was out of line then.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I haven’t read the relevant legislation recently, but I don’t think any superior, bishop, abbot etc, can forbid a priest from celebrating either the OF or the EF privately. Canon Law also states that every priest has a right to celebrate mass individually, an also always has the right to celebrate in Latin.

On the other hand, a bishop can regulate the public liturgy in his diocese and can order a priest to celebrate only one form of mass in publicly accessible places. Also any religious superior can prohibit one of his subjects from celebrating mass in a given place. Thus bishops and superiors can prevent the EF from being said in places in which the faithful could participate.
I know of one case at the moment where this is the situation.

Religious take vows of obedience. Diocesan make promises of obedience (I think). Religious can not do anything they want because they have to obey their superior, as Br. JR noted. Is that correct, Br. JR?

 

[JReducation]

There is a difference between a priest and a religious. This is where the laity get confused.

When the Church speaks about a priest, she usually means secular priests, not those who are religious, unless she is specific. In other words, the rules and constitutions of the religious community remain in effect regardless of what Canon Law says or a Motu Proprio says, unless the law or the Motu Proprio explicitly say that the rule applies to religious as well. Some canons do not apply to religious or they are applied differently. But there are other documents that do not show up in the public domain that explain these things. The truth is that there are not too many. Most canons apply across the board. The Code of 1983 tried to be as simple as possible. But there is a provision for customs, rules and practices that have been in place for 100 years or more. In the canons on religious life there are provisions for religious that do not apply to diocesan priests or that exempt religious from one or the other canon that applies to diocesan priests.

I’ll give an example. Canon Law says that priests have a right to celebrate daily mass. In fact, it’s encouraged. However, having the right to say a daily mass does not mean that they have permission to do so. The superior can grant the permission, because the canon allows for it. For example, in some religioius communities, if there are several priests in the house, only one can celebrate mass and the others attend the mass said by the one. This is in their rule. When it’s in the rule, the rule remains in effect unless it is changed by the Pontiff himself.

In some religious communities, the constitutions say that the community has the right to vote on this matter. The situation will vary from house to house.

The vow of obedience is not the same as the promise of obedience. The vow of obedience is made only by religious. It means that we obey: pope, founder, rule, constitutions, general chapter, superior and local chapter. We have many more layers of authority and many more areas where authority has rights, one of them is the celebration of mass by those who are ordained.

Some religious communities, such as the Dominicans, are what we call clerical institutes. This means that they are religious orders for priests. Therefore, it is assumed that they will exercise their priestly ministry as part of their way of life. Non-clerical orders, such as the Franciscans, the Marianists, the Missionaries of the Poor, the Missionaries of Charity, are communities of brothers that have some brother-priests or priest-brothers. In such communities, you do not assume that the ordained will exercise their priestly ministry without the permission of the superior and the approval of the community.

This is not as harsh as it soiunds. For example, we have no standing rule that says that our brothers who are ordained may not celebrate mass. However, we do have a rule that says that if there is a community, those who are ordained must concelebrate or attend the mass of the community to preserve the brotherhood. An individual celebration of the mass happens only when necessary. There can be many reasons why it can be necessary, such as intentions that people have paid for or parishes and other institutions. The whole community does not attend such a mass.

The promise of obedience is made by deacons and priests who are secular. These men belong to a diocese. They promise to obey the local bishop. The do not have a superior, a rule, constitutions, a community or a founder to whom they owe obedience. The bishop has areas that he cannot govern such as the use of money, relationships with their family members, recreation, posessions, use of free time and prayer life. This includes the mass.

The bishop’s rights to regulat the celebration of the mass are determined by Canon Law, not by common law (rule and constitutions). There is the difference. Also, each bishop makes his rules for his diocese. Therefore, no two diocesan deacons or priests are bound to the same rules if they are from different dioceses. The common rules would be those that are found in Canon Law or those decided by the bishops of the province. Religious of the same community, on the other hand, are bound to the same rules regardless of where they live.

In the case in question, if the friar publicly displayed his displeasure, he was out of compliance with the Rule of St. Francis. The rule is very clear that we are not to do or say anything contrary to the wishes of the local bishop and we are to obey without murmuring. If the friar was commenting, it can be a form of murmuring. I was not there, so I cannot say. The prudent thing for a Franciscan to do is to shut up and suck it up. This way, you comply with the bishop and with St. Francis. If you comply with the bishop, but you complain all the way home, you’re disobeying Francis. It’s better to just be quiet and let it go.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PbloPicasso]

Br. JR
Thank you for your answer. I believe this is what I was looking for in the OP. Very interesting. I’ve heard this before but never explained quite to the detail you’ve presented. Much thanks.
In Christ

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, this particular priest is on loan to our diocese. He’s a Third Order Franciscan Friar.

Ah, he doesn’t report to this bishop. Aside from being a religious, this can be a big problem if he were requesting an EF on a regular basis (such as every Sunday). You didn’t specify in the OP whether he was denying a one-time Mass or a regularly scheduled one. Every Sunday obviously is a much bigger commitment than a one-time Mass on both the bishop’s part and the priest’s part.