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

[JReducation]

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.

I’m not sure what Picasso means by “on loan”. I’ll give my example. I work for a diocese, even though I’m a religious. Therefore, I’m bound to obey the bishop on all matters that affect my ministry in his diocese, because it’s his ministry. There are religious who are assigned to work in a diocesan ministry. This can be the running of a parish. Since the parish belongs to the bishop, the bishop has the final word on all matters pertaining to his parish.

There is a difference between these religious and the diocesan priest. When religious work for a diocese, be it at a parish or other, there is an understanding that the bishop will not ask them to do anything that is contrary to their community. It is also understood that the bishop has whatever power may be given to him by the rule of the community. For example, a bishop may not ask a friar to hear confessions all day long, even if there are 1,000 people in line. This would interfere with the community life of the religious, which always takes precedence, except when the rule of the community says otherwise. The bishop leaves the decision to the judgment of the superior.

In the case of the EF, if a priest is a religious, he must first have permission from his community. Once he has that, if he wants to celebrate it in a parish of the diocese where he works, he must follow the guidelines of the diocese. The superior governs the religious. He does not govern the parish. If the religious wants to celebrate it in a chapel or oratory that belongs to his community, the permission of the superior will suffice, provded that he does not cause scandal to the laity. The bishop certainly has the right to complain to the superor.

There is another issue with the EF. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one Franciscan community that has permission to celebrate the EF on-going. The other Franciscans must have permission of the superiors. Again, to the best of my knowledge, the permission is not denied as long as it is not a regular event and in some cases it has been granted because the superior has been approached by either a bishop or a religious who have presented a need for this and he has agreed to help meet that need. There is always that coordination between superior and bishop.

In those cases, because the Rule of St. Francis says that the religious will obey the bishops without ever questioning, even if the superior says that a brother-priest can celebrate the EF, if the local bishop says that he may not, for whaterver reason, let’s say you cannot celebrate it on rainy days . . . as foolish as this may sound, the brother-priest must obey the bishop, because the rule commands him to obey. In reality, he is obeying the rule. The fact is that we religious do not make a vow to obey bishops. If you notice in my previous post on obedience, the bishop is not in the line of authority. It goes from the pope, through the rule, to the superior.

When we make profession, we vow to obey the founder, the rule and the superior who is the legitimate successor of the founder. In the case of Franciscans, the rule does mention bishops. This is not so for every rule or for every religious institute.

On loan is a little ambiguous. What I understand as on loan would be an assignnent by mutual agreement between superior and bishop for a specific amount of time. This happens. I had a superior who as “lent” to the diocese to be the Vicar General of the diocese. This meant that he would be the Vicar General for three years and then would resign. He remained a member of the community with all the rights and obligations, but his also helped govern the diocese for three-years.

As I said above, the best scenario for a religious who is denied a permission by a bishop is to keep quiet, go home and share it with his superior. To make his displeasure known to the laity only confuses people. It makes people believe that the bishop did something that he has no right to do. That’s not the case. The bishop has every right to tell a Franciscan to stand on his head, because St. Francis said so. The Franciscan has two choices, stand on his head or leave that bishop’s diocese and move to a ministry not under this bishop. St. Francis also says that.

All this being said, we are all human. We all have sinned. We all have our idiosyncrecies. If we were perfect we would not need the Church. Human beings are going to do human actions, good, bad or indifferent . . . pleasant and unpleasant. We roll with the punches and try to fix what we can. What we cannot fix, we pray that God will bring some good out of it all. He understands us better than we understand ourselves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

As I said above, the best scenario for a religious who is denied a permission by a bishop is to keep quiet, go home and share it with his superior. To make his displeasure known to the laity only confuses people. It makes people believe that the bishop did something that he has no right to do. That’s not the case.

What the friar-priest should or should not have done is a matter which I will not involve myself in. (I would have made a miserable Franciscan. )

In any case, though, **assuming that the friar-priest has permission from his proper **(in the case at hand, TOR) superior to offer the EF, I’m not so sure that the bishop actually has the “right” to forbid the EF.

Thankfully, we are past the days of the “indult” and I do not see anywhere in SP that it really gives the diocesan bishop the “right” to forbid the EF. Article 2 allows “private” celebration of the EF by any priest, secular or regular. (Article 3 pertains to the use of the EF within religious communities, so it doesn’t apply to this thread.) Article 4 allows the faithful to attend such celebration. That brings us to Article 5 sub 1, which is probably the culprit in the case at hand, but even that article specifies “guidance” rather than direct interference on the part of the bishop.

The whole point of SP was to free the EF from its bondage, and that includes the bondage imposed by obstructionist local bishops.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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 think what Br. JR is responding to is the call for a universal dress code promulgated by the Vatican for the entire Catholic Church. That is impossible because of difference in cultural standards throughout the world. But a diocese or Episcopal Conference may issue dress codes for their territory which would conform to cultural standards. This has been done in the Philippines where the CBCP has issued dress codes for all the dioceses. When my wife and I came home to visit two years ago, we went into one of the southern islands where there is a beach resort. Part of the package is a full-day tour of the island. One of the stops is one of the first Catholic churches in the Philippines. Of course being on vacation and it was a hot summer day (37-degrees C without the humidity) we were wearing our beach attire. Actually we didn’t even check the full itinerary to realize one of the stops was a church. Anyway, long story short, we had to rent a shoal for my wife because what she was wearing exposes her shoulders. We weren’t in swimwear, but the dress code says no exposed shoulders for women. I’ve seen turtlenecks with exposed shoulders, that wouldn’t pass the dress code there.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ThThe prudent thing for a Franciscan to do is to shut up and suck it up.

There needs to be a little bit of Franciscan in all of us.

 

[ProVobis]

Thankfully, we are past the days of the “indult” and I do not see anywhere in SP that it really gives the diocesan bishop the “right” to forbid the EF.

But even the JPII “indult” was decreed to be made more “wide and generous.” Here 22 years later some dioceses are fighting to get just one EF in a chapel, monastery, anything.

 

[Judge_Mental]

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.

I wasn’t disputing the Bishop’s right to forbid the EF. I was lamenting that he would do it at all.

 

[JReducation]

What the friar-priest should or should not have done is a matter which I will not involve myself in. (I would have made a miserable Franciscan. )

When God calls, he also provides the grace to respond. Total, blind and absolute obedience is the most liberating part of being a Franciscan and the highest form of poverty. He or she who can detach from his will, his opinions, his wishes, and his desires is one who has reached the perfection of the cross. This is what we strive for, one baby-step at a time.

In any case, though, **assuming that the friar-priest has permission from his proper **(in the case at hand, TOR) superior to offer the EF, I’m not so sure that the bishop actually has the “right” to forbid the EF.

Thankfully, we are past the days of the “indult” and I do not see anywhere in SP that it really gives the diocesan bishop the “right” to forbid the EF. Article 2 allows “private” celebration of the EF by any priest, secular or regular. (Article 3 pertains to the use of the EF within religious communities, so it doesn’t apply to this thread.) Article 4 allows the faithful to attend such celebration. That brings us to Article 5 sub 1, which is probably the culprit in the case at hand, but even that article specifies “guidance” rather than direct interference on the part of the bishop.

The whole point of SP was to free the EF from its bondage, and that includes the bondage imposed by obstructionist local bishops.

Actually, you have to be very careful how you read Article 2. Article 2 says that a regular priest has the right to celebrate the mass in private. It does not say that he has permission. The Holy Father is very careful about how he words this.

Permission is only granted by the religious community. The religious community cannot grant you permission to do something that you do not have the right to do. The right has to be secured first. The Holy Father covered this in SP. As to permission, that’s up to the community.

In some communities, permission can be assumed. In others, you must ask for it. You must remember that Franciscans are not an order of priests. We are a family of brothers and sisters. Some of our brothers are ordained, but they remain brothers. Therefore, they have no special privileges or special permissions because they are ordained. They have the right to celebrate the sacraments. However, they must exercise that right according to the rule.

This is also true for every other religious family. If you are a religious, you must apply Article 2 according to the statutes that govern your community. You have the right. Do you have permission to exercise that right? It depends on your community.

We all have certain rights, but we don’t always have permission to exercise those rights. In this case, the Holy Father, Francis, made it very clear that an ordained friar had to submit to the judgment of his superior at all times and when applicable, to the local bishop.

This friar was denied permission by the bishop. According to the Rule of St. Francis, the bishop has the right to do this. What’s interesting is that he cannot deny the permission to a diocesan priest or a priest of an order that does not have this regulation in place. Since Francis gives the bishop this right, the bishop does not need to justify himself. He doesn’t even need a good reason to deny the permission. He can deny it because he doesn’t like you. As long as the bishop does not violate canon law or the rule of the order, there is not much that we Franciscans can do or say.

In our own chapels, schools, houses, or other facilities, our superiors call the shots, not the local bishop. In his parishes, the bishop calls the shots.

Also, it is not totally true that the laity may attend the private mass of any priest. The law is referring to a mass that the priest is celebrating alone in a public place. If the mass is being celebrated in a religious house or a chapel that belongs to the religious community or even in the house of secular institute, such as the FSSP, the laity does not have the right to attend, because the laity does not have the right to enter. The law only applies if the mass is in a public place.

I believe it’s the Carthusians that do not allow the laity to see them celebrate mass. In my own Franciscan tradition, the laity may be invited to a mass, if the mass is outside of the enclosure. Some of our houses deliberately built their chapels with an outside entrance to allow lay people to attend mass and LOTH. Not all are built that way.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

Actually, you have to be very careful how you read Article 2. Article 2 says that a regular priest has the right to celebrate the mass in private. It does not say that he has permission. The Holy Father is very careful about how he words this.

Permission is only granted by the religious community. The religious community cannot grant you permission to do something that you do not have the right to do. The right has to be secured first. The Holy Father covered this in SP. As to permission, that’s up to the community.

Yes, I know that full well. I thought that was clear by the qualification I made in bold in my earlier post (I won’t repeat it here for the sake of economy, but it’s coming below).

This friar was denied permission by the bishop. According to the Rule of St. Francis, the bishop has the right to do this. What’s interesting is that he cannot deny the permission to a diocesan priest or a priest of an order that does not have this regulation in place. Since Francis gives the bishop this right, the bishop does not need to justify himself. He doesn’t even need a good reason to deny the permission. He can deny it because he doesn’t like you. As long as the bishop does not violate canon law or the rule of the order, there is not much that we Franciscans can do or say.

In respect to the case at hand, again assuming that the friar had permission from his proper superiors, and assuming that the friar was serving the diocese by legitimate invitation of the bishop, I remain unconvinced. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that the bishop would have taken the exact same tack had the priest been secular or a regular other than a Franciscan friar.

Also, it is not totally true that the laity may attend the private mass of any priest. The law is referring to a mass that the priest is celebrating alone in a public place.

After all this time, Brother JR, I’m surprised that you would even think I meant anything other than in a public place.

 

[JReducation]

In respect to the case at hand, again assuming that the friar had permission from his proper superiors, and assuming that the friar was serving the diocese by legitimate invitation of the bishop, I remain unconvinced. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that the bishop would have taken the exact same tack had the priest been secular or a regular other than a Franciscan friar.

Let’s assume that the friar had permission from his superior. I would not assume that the bishop would do such a thing. We cannot go about our lives thinking the worse of every person. It only soils our souls and does nothing goood. Always look for the most noble in all people.

After all this time, Brother JR, I’m surprised that you would even think I meant anything other than in a public place.

Believe it or not, there are people who read these documents and interpret them very literally. That’s why I always like to add the clarifications. The question about private and public is not a difficult for people to understand as is the difference between right and permission.

I also tell people this way. We are born with certain rights, but we don’t have permission to make use of them until the appropriate time and place. The best example that I give to people is marriage. We have a natural right to marry and raise a family. But we do not have permission to do so until we reach some arbitrary age, which varies from one society to another.

One problem that people often have in reading such documents is that we are more accustomed to thinking in the language of civil law. Civl law uses rights, privilege and permissions interchangeably most of the time. The best example is abortion. Because it’s allowed, it is presumed to be a right and thus stated in civil law.

It’s important to clarify that a right does not presume permission. In SP the Holy Father is very clear. He use both words separately in different paragraphs of the document.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

Let’s assume that the friar had permission from his superior. I would not assume that the bishop would do such a thing.

And there you have it. In the scenario where the friar (a) had the permission of his proper superior and (b) was serving in the diocese at the legitimate nod of the bishop, I would not assume the bishop would take such a negative tack either. However, unless I totally misread the OP (and subsequent postings by the OP), that’s just what happened. The question, then, remains: why? That’s leads to the principle of equality under the law (which holds in Canon Law as well as civil law).

Now, if the friar did not have the permission of his proper superior, it’s a horse of a different color, but in that case the friar himself would know better (at least he should) than to even attempt to “take the law into his own hands” so-to-speak.

I suppose we need the OP to expand further and clarify the status of the friar.

 

[JReducation]

And there you have it. In the scenario where the friar (a) had the permission of his proper superior and (b) was serving in the diocese at the legitimate nod of the bishop, I would not assume the bishop would take such a negative tack either. However, unless I totally misread the OP (and subsequent postings by the OP), that’s just what happened. The question, then, remains: why? That’s leads to the principle of equality under the law (which holds in Canon Law as well as civil law).

Now, if the friar did not have the permission of his proper superior, it’s a horse of a different color, but in that case the friar himself would know better (at least he should) than to even attempt to “take the law into his own hands” so-to-speak.

I suppose we need the OP to expand further and clarify the status of the friar.

The Principle of Equality does not apply to Franciscans, because Francis forfeited it in the name of all his sons in favor of absolute obedience to the bishop. When we make profession we vow to obey the rule and Francis. According to the rule, bishops can do with us as they please, provided that we are working for them and that they act according to what is allowed to them by both the rule and the canons.

For example, I work for a diocese. The bishop can tell me what to do or not do in my ministry and he has no obligation to explain himself to me or to my superior. He may not interfere in internal matters. If I were working in one of our colleges, such as at Franciscan University, the bishop has no jurisdiction. A parish is different. It belongs to the bishop.

The Franciscan thing to do is to accept what the bishop says and move along. No canon has been violated. The Rule has not been violated. No one has asked the individual to commit a sinful act.

What some people are failing to see, in this case, is that you’re dealing with a Franciscan. The friar, the laity and the bishop must govern themselves by the rules and guidelines set by St. Francis for his brothers. You cannot argue an issue involving a religious withoiut submitting to the founder and the statutes that govern the relationship between the religious, the bishop and the laity. Once the founder’s rules and statutes are approved by the Apostolic See, everyone who comes into contact with a religious of said community is bound by those rules and statutes, unless the pope dispenses from them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

The Principle of Equality does not apply to Franciscans, because Francis forfeited it in the name of all his sons in favor of absolute and blind obedience to the bishop. When we make profession we vow to obey the rule and Francis. Bishops can do with us as they please, provided that we are working for them and that they act according to what is allowed to them by both the rule and the canons.

For example, I work for a diocese. The bishop can tell me what to do or not do in my ministry and he has no obligation to explain himself to me or to my superior. He may not interfere in internal matters. If I were working in one of our colleges, such as at Franciscan University, the bishop has no jurisdiction. A parish is different. It belongs to the bishop.

The Franciscan thing to do is to accept what the bishop says and move along. No canon has been violated. The Rule has not been violated. No one has asked the individual to commit a sinful act.

I still don’t buy that the bishop’s actions (given all the assumptions noted earlier) was legitimate, nor do I buy that the law (in this case SP) was not violated. But I have no interest or intention of arguing further, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I still don’t buy that the bishop’s actions (given all the assumptions noted earlier) was legitimate, nor do I buy that the law (in this case SP) was not violated. But I have no interest or intention of arguing further, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

No need to “agree to disagree”. You and Br JR are speaking about two different things.

Br JR has not said that the Bishop in this case acted legitimately or did not violate the law. Br JR is speaking of how a Franciscan is to act. That is unless the Bishop orders the friar to do something that is a sin the friar must obey the Bishop according to the rule and constitutions of the Franciscans.

 

[JReducation]

No need to “agree to disagree”. You and Br JR are speaking about two different things.

Br JR has not said that the Bishop in this case acted legitimately or did not violate the law. Br JR is speaking of how a Franciscan is to act. That is unless the Bishop orders the friar to do something that is a sin the friar must obey the Bishop according to the rule and constitutions of the Franciscans.

You are correct, Brother. That’s why I said above, that in dealing with matters that involve a religious, one must take into account, not only what Church law says or a papal decree, but also the statutes of the particular institute.

The law may grant a universal right that the institute chooses to forfeit. In that case, the religious in question is bound by the statutes of his institute. The laity who are involved by association are also bound to those same statutes.

For example, I’m a Franciscan. Let’s assume that I live in a parish run by the Carmelite Friars. I’m bound to accept what the Carmelite constitutions allow or prohibit. I cannot cry fowl because the pope says that the clergy can stand on their head and the Carmelites stand on their feet, because it’s against their statutes. The pope did not say that they had to stand on their head. He said they could. But the Prior or the constitutions said they cannot.

I have two choices, if I want to remain in the Caremelite run parish, I have to submit to the Carmelite regulations. If I don’t want to submit to the Carmelite regulations, I have to find another parish. I can’t cry fowl, because my Franciscan Ministers allow us to stand on our heads.

The misunderstanding here is that the rule says the friar must do what the bishop says as long as he works for the bishop and he may not question it. I don’t understand why everyone else wants to question it on behalf of the friar? We, Franciscans, are perfectly happy with the status quo. We have had this relationship with bishops for 800 years. There are times when they demand or prohibit things that we do not like and that tick us off, but we live with it. As we progress in holiness, we even learn to smile in such situations.

My suggestion to those who deal with religious . . . don’t try to help in their relationship with bishops and in matters of liturgy. The religious don’t want it and it will do no good.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cecilianus]

I go to a Benedictine school; the monks at the abbey practice complete denial of self by perfect obedience, just as Br JR described for the Franciscans. There is never any talk about what they have or do not have a “right” to do, and never any question as to whether their superior violated their canonical rights. That is not because their canonical rights have never been violated - arguably such did occur when some of the younger hieromonks were told not to say the Tridentine Mass, or when the some of the sisters at the associated convent were told not to wear habits - but rather because this is the way they grow in holiness through perfect obedience. Fr. X may have the canonical right to say the Latin Mass, but as a religious he isn’t going to exercise that right, out of perfect obedience - and though I might question the prudence of joining such a particular monastery or working in such a particular diocese to begin with, once one there it is really best that they do die to self as completely as they strive to do.

 

[JReducation]

I go to a Benedictine school; the monks at the abbey practice complete denial of self by perfect obedience, just as Br JR described for the Franciscans. There is never any talk about what they have or do not have a “right” to do, and never any question as to whether their superior violated their canonical rights. That is not because their canonical rights have never been violated - arguably such did occur when some of the younger hieromonks were told not to say the Tridentine Mass, or when the some of the sisters at the associated convent were told not to wear habits - but rather because this is the way they grow in holiness through perfect obedience. Fr. X may have the canonical right to say the Latin Mass, but as a religious he isn’t going to exercise that right, out of perfect obedience - and though I might question the prudence of joining such a particular monastery or working in such a particular diocese to begin with, once one there it is really best that they do die to self as completely as they strive to do.

The description that you provide of the Benedictine monks at your school is very consistent with what we know about Francis’ idea of obedience. It’s not a coincidence. Francis had a close relationship with the Benedictines. Along with the fact that he aspired to obey Christ in all things, it is reasonable to assume that he looked around him for examples of such obedience. The Benedictines, interestingly enough, make only two vows: obedience and stability.

For all his love for and preaching on poverty, it is important to note that the five rules that Francis wrote for his three orders (there were three editions of the Rule of the Friars Minor), all of his rules beging with the following words:

“The Rule of the [insert name of order] is to live the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, in OBEDIENCE, without property and in chastity.”

Observe that he makes obedience the first vow, not poverty. He writes a great deal about obedience. It was also important to note that he wrote about obedience not only for his orders, but he wrote letters and admonitions for rulers and the faithful. In all of them he brings out the importance of obedience in living a life of penance. Those who do penance, must obey. Those who are poor, must detach from self-will. You cannot be Catholic if you do not obey the pope and bishops. His teaching, admonitions and writings always pointed to obedience.

We know that he did not go to university to study theology and philsophy. The other possible source of his knowledge on this form of asceticism, along with Sacred Scripture, would have been the examples of the Benedictines who were his friends and from whom he received a great deal of support.

There was another common thread with the Benedictines. There was never a claim to rights. Obviously, Francis believed in human rights and in legal rights. He assigns certain rights and duties to his followers and to all of the Catholic faithful. There is no question that he believed in rights. However, he approached rights from the perspective of justice. The person in authority was bound to protect the rights of those entrusted to his care. The subject was to accept the decisions of the person in authority without question. The subject was not to demand his rights.

This is a very Benedictine discipline. Francis expands on it by attaching poverty to the equation. Obedience is a form of detachment from self, in other words, a form of poverty as practiced by Jesus on the cross. It is not something that we arrive at over night, but a goal to be achieved.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Judge_Mental]

This seems odd. A diocesan Bishop forbidding a priest (any priest) from saying a Mass. Unless he was some kind of heretic.

It’s also odd that a Bishop would presume to tell a religious to not say a Mass. Is that common?

Anyway, can a diocesan Bishop tell a secular priest, who knows Latin, not to say the EF and under what circumstances?

I think posters here are confused. Before S.P., any secular priest could say the old rite in private. He could have friends attend. The whole idea of S.P. was to announce that the old rite was now officially liberated. That is was never, in fact, abrogated. That it can not now, therefore, be forbidden by bishops, just because it is not the O.F. or Novus Ordo.

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/09/quaeritur-can-bishops-forbid-pastors-to-add-a-tlm-to-the-schedule/