Universae Ecclesiae

[Cetil]

This was said, but what you do not find in the Code of Canon Law is the request from the Sacred Congregation for Religious (at that time) to dispense with this requirement for members of religious orders who were studying to be priests as well as religious.

Religious superiors asked for this, because the Holy See approved the constitutions of all the religious orders as they were submitted, after they were renewed. Many had taken the Latin requirement out of the Constitution. These constitutions existed before the Canons of 1983. There was a problem. The Holy See was saying one thing in the Canons but saying another in the constitutions of religious orders, secular institutes and societies of apostolic life that it was approving.

To fix the problem, the request was granted. Those religious orders that have priests, which is about 60% and those priests in these orders, must form according to their constitutions, unless one of two things happens:

a) The pope overrules all of the constitutions, which he can do.

or

b) The General Chapter of each community amends the constitutions.

To do this, the community must get permission from the pope to have a special chapter to amend the Constitution. Once the amendment is voted on and approved by the community, it still has to be approved by the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. If it passes mustard there, it must be sent to the Holy Father for approval. Then a reasonable period of time must be allowed for implementation. Finally, the amendment only binds those who enter from that point forward, because you cannot go backward and undo degree programs. These graduate schools only apply changes in the graduation requirements going forward, not backward.

That’s why the new directive has a much softer tone on the Latin requirement. Rome has to navigate around that one with care not to cause chaos and not to cause these men to lose time in school.

This is another glitch. Religious orders of mixed life, also called fraternal orders, have men who are going to be priests, but have many men who are not going to be priests. However, they all have to go through the same program of studies. Those men who are not going to be priests, but are going for a theology degree would be required to study Latin as part of their graduation requirement for what purpose? It is much better for the religious community to allow those men who want to learn Latin to do it on their own or to take it as an elective, rather than as a degree requirement. Even if you’re going to be the brother who answers the door, you have to get that degree. It’s part of your formation program.

This is not as easy as it sounds when you’re dealing with thousands of men in different countries, different religious communities, with different needs, and different budgets. Education is not free. Some religious communities struggle to educate their men, especially outside of the USA. Religious communities in the USA have more resources.

We have to understand these things the way that the Holy Father does.

If I may make one suggestion to the laity, tread lightly on the religious men and the Latin. We are very fortunate in the USA that the Council of Major Superiors of Men and the USCCB get along well. They agree on most things, including the education of priests and brothers. To push an agenda that would create a rift is not worth it. We need both authority figures working together.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The Latin requirement has not been softened at all, if you will take the time to read section 21 of the document and its corresponding footnote. Also, my post dealt only with what Canon law requires and the norms adopted by the US bishops which I think only addresses diocesan seminaries. I don’t care what happens in religious orders I don’t expect much from them. The recommendation of Latin instruction contained in the current “clarification” is obviously directed to priests who may need training to say the EF. With respect to the mention of Latin: ". Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite. " This paragraph calls attention to footnote 8 which is the following: " Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 249; SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36; Declaration Optatum totius, 13.
Obviously Canon 249 is still in force or the document would not call attention to it. Note also the mention of “Optatium totius 13 which states:
" 13. Before beginning specifically ecclesiastical subjects, seminarians should be equipped with that humanistic and scientific training which young men in their own countries are wont to have as a foundation for higher studies. Moreover they are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church. The study of the liturgical language proper to each rite should be considered necessary; a suitable knowledge of the languages of the Bible and of Tradition should be greatly encouraged.”
It’s hard to imagine how anyone here would get the impression that Canon 249 is in any sense being weakened.

C.

 

[laszlo]

In the high school to which my domicile belong, Latin and also Hebrew is available as elective, for all 4 years. It is well known that any second language is easiest to learn at early age.

If you believe that the pope should force the Latin in the seminaries, what did you do in your part to learn Latin as yourself, or let your children to learn Latin in the public education?

Otherwise in the local seminary there is 6 semesters of Latin offered, apparently 2 is obligatory.

In cases like this one does not need the interaction of the pope, it can be resolved locally.

 

[stevusmagnus]

19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

This was needed. You cannot belong to a group that such as the SSPX, SSPV, or some other group that claims that the Ordinary Form is wrong. You have to accept the legitimacy of the Ordinary Form and the authority of the pope to promote it and protect it. In essence, he’s telling us to stop the competition between the two forms.

First, the SSPV are sedevacantists and are completely different from the SSPX. To lump them together in a sweeping analysis is neither fair nor accurate.

Second, the PCED has the final authoritative interpretation as to who is encompassed by paragraph 19, not posters on an internet forum. Thus we cannot rashly assume the SSPX is contemplated by this paragraph. Patience and prudence is called for.

Third, only priests and religious can “belong to” the Society of St. Pius X.

Fourth, the Society of St. Pius X has always recognized the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments

Fifth, the Society of St. Pius X is not “against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church”. They recognize BXVI as Pope despite their disagreements over particular issues. Just because their society is currently canonically irregular does not mean they are “against the Pope”. In fact they are more “for” the Pope than many bishops & priests in “full communion”.

Sixth. the Society believes the NOM is “legitimate” in the sense that it is a Mass approved of by the Pope, despite the fact they have severe criticisms of it.

 

[Cetil]

Well, no, Rome speaks for it, since the Holy See is always the proper arbiter of what the canons mean. Obviously the Holy Father doesn’t consider this canon to be that mandatory, or the new instruction would not say cite it with the mild remark, “Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin . . . .”

It isn’t a mild remark since it uses the word “should”. You should also notice footnote 8 which is referenced in the passage you are citing. That footnote says: “Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 249; SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36; Declaration Optatum totius, 13.”
I can’t imagine why you think a paragraph which in fact calls attention to Canon 249 as well as Paul VI’s requirement of Latin somehow “softens” it.

C.

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

Here’s my opinion on the whole document:

irenaeusgsaintonge.blogspot.com/2011/05/analysis-of-universae-ecclesiae.html

Next , §7, we find an explanation of why the TLM seemed to be effectively forbidden after Vatican II, even though Summorum Pontificum states that it was never abrogated. “Such norms needed on account of the fact that, when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy.” This may be a little bit of whitewashing; from what I hear, the TLM was effectively forbidden for many of those years. However, since I didn’t experience it myself, I’m willing to accept it.
I think that the last paragraph of §7 is especially important. “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.” This was quoting Pope Benedict in 2007. In my opinion this puts into their place those opinions that we are Latin Catholics are obliged to attend to Ordinary Form simple because it is Ordinary. I consider this opinion to be incorrect and harmful to those who are attached to the old Mass, or those who may in the future wish to know more about it. In fact, I think it can be argued based on these passages that, for those who are attached to the TLM, it is in fact a responsibility to attend. As we see in §8, the old Mass is “considered as a precious treasure to be preserved.” Who is to preserve it but the priests and laypeople? It is not merely our right to attend Mass in this form, it is indeed our responsibility to see it made available as widely as possible.
This section is quick and interesting in that it specifically places the authority of Ecclesia Dei above the local ordinary in matters regarding the TLM. We’ve been given recourse the Ecclesia Dei then, if our bishops are resistant to introducing the Extraordinary Form. I’m thinking at the moment of the time a couple hears ago (during the H1N1 scare) where my bishop temporarily suspended Communion on the tongue. The FSSP politely (and quite rightly) indicated that they could not comply with this directive (they cannot still, according to a section later on in this document), so the TLM was suspended until that directive was lifted. I don’t think this was appropriate on the part of my bishop, and now if something similar happens in the future, Ecclesia Dei has the authority to override him.
In §15 we see first a bit of directive as to what defines a “coetus fidelium”, the group of the faithful mentioned in Summorum Pontificum. First, there is again no mention of numbers. As far as I’m concerned a group consists of three or more, and I believe that since both Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae decline to go into any detail, we are to assume that a small group carries just as much weight as a large one. In fact, according to §17.2, if a group is very small they are to approach the Ordinary (bishop), who is to make the Mass available for them at a particular church. Also, this group need not be composed solely of members of that particular parish.
As per §16, if a group of the faithful has a priest who is willing to say the TLM for them, and this priest presents himself at a parish or oratory, he is to be given that opportunity by the pastor (within the reasonable bounds of the parish’s regular schedule).
The only stipulation on groups of the faithful is that they may not “support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or …] against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Church.” Not even those people who attend SSPX Masses can be said to belong to this. I don’t even know why a group of sedevacantists/sedeprivationists, etc., would want to celebrate Mass within the Church, but there you go.
With regards for qualified priests, we see that a priest is considered qualified to say Mass in the Extraordinary Form if he is not impeded by canon law, has a basic knowledge of Latin so as to pronounce the words and understand their meaning, and have celebrated it in the past.
Furthermore (§21), we see that seminarians are to be given the opportunity to learn the Extraordinary Form, and we are also reminded of the obligation to be familiar with Latin. Sadly the knowledge of Latin is not currently a part of most seminary curricula, and I’m not sure what we can do right now to change that.
According to §24, the rubrics of the 1962 missal must be followed when celebrating that Mass. I figured this was self-evident, but just recently we heard about a parish in which the TLM was celebrated with female altar servers. Thankfully this is clearly not permitted in the TLM. This would also reaffirm the position of the FSSP with regards to the H1N1 issue I mentioned above.
However (and this was also self-evident, in my opinion), regarding the disciplinary norms connected to celebration, the 1983 Code of Canon Law is to be observed. If I’m not mistaken this includes such things as the Eucharistic fast, the number of times a person can participate in Mass in a single day, the wearing of veils etc…
According to §31, only Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life are permitted to ordain (minor or major) in the older form of the Mass. This was the case before, so nothing new here, although I have to admit that I don’t understand the reasoning behind this. Would be nice if it changed sometime in the future.
With regards to the Easter Triduum, it is the right of the faithful to celebrate in the Extraordinary Form (§33), and if there is no church exclusively for their use, they are to be accomodated, “not excluding the possibility of a repetition of the celebration of the Sacred Triduum in the same church.” This is what happened in my diocese, since the FSSP share a diocesan church.

 

[Cetil]

Correct me if I’m wrong. I am getting the sense that the hope of the lay people on this thread is that if the seminarians were forced to learn Latin there would be more priests to celebrate the EF.

If that’s the hope, it an unrealistic hope, because no one can force a priest to celebrate the EF. Heck, no one can force a priest to celebrate mass except on Sunday. Even the Sunday obligation is questionable. If the priest belongs to a religious order, he can simply attend mass in his religious house, celebrated by one of his brothers.

Don’t think that Latin will be the guarantee to the EF. Many of us studied Latin and know it very fluently and never use it for liturgical purposes. We learned it for academic reasons, usually to do research.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

As paragraph 21 implies by calling your attention to “pastoral needs” it may indeed be the case that some priests may be called upon to say the EF whether they wish to or not. That of course pertains to obedience does it not??

C.

 

[ProVobis]

This from the 2005 Program of Priestly Formation set up by the USCCB

“…A knowledge of Latin and the biblical languages is foundational and should
be given the emphasis that the Church accords it.117 Particular attention
must be given to ensure that before entering the theologate all seminarians
can demonstrate that they have acquired that “knowledge of Latin
which will enable them to understand and make use of so many scientific
sources and of the documents of the Church,” according to the insistence
of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council…118”

usccb.org/vocations/ProgramforPriestlyFormation.pdf

 

[bkovacs]

Not to get off topic, but the USCCB website doesn’t even mention this document that was released today, not even in their news section.

 

[JReducation]

As paragraph 21 implies by calling your attention to “pastoral needs” it may indeed be the case that some priests may be called upon to say the EF whether they wish to or not. **That of course pertains to obedience does it not??**C.

Bold is mine.

Neither bishops nor religious superiors can invoke obedience here for several reasons.

1. Diocesan and other secular priests do not make a vow of obedience. They promise to obey their bishop. However, the bishop’s authority to command is limited to ordinary matters. The bishop cannot command what is out of the ordinary. Since this is the extraordinary form of the mass, the bishop cannot command a priest to celebrate it. It has to be negotiated between the bishop and the individual priest, in the event that it’s the bishop who initiates. Summorum Pontificum gives secular priests the right to celebrate it without the permission of their bishop. It calls upon the bishops to facilitate the EF when it’s requested. It does not give the bishop the right to command a priest to celebrate it.
2. If the priest is a member of a religious order, he has a vow of obedience. His vow is to obey the pope, his founder, the rule and constitutions, the superior and his brothers when they speak at a chapter. Unless the founder or the chapter determine that the priests in their community must celebrate the EF, the superior cannot command it. Religious superiors of men can only command

a) what the constitutions allow them to command

b) what the founder allows them to command

c) what Canon Law allows them to command (Canon Law tries to stay out of the internal affairs of religious)

d) what the subordinates vote on . . . the Superior must enforce it

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

First, the SSPV are sedevacantists and are completely different from the SSPX. To lump them together in a sweeping analysis is neither fair nor accurate.

No one said that the SSPX are sedevacantists. However, they are not in full communion with the Pontiff. This is still being worked on.

Second, the PCED has the final authoritative interpretation as to who is encompassed by paragraph 19, not posters on an internet forum. Thus we cannot rashly assume the SSPX is contemplated by this paragraph. Patience and prudence is called for.

I don’t think that we’re going to get more clarifications than this.

Third, only priests and religious can “belong to” the Society of St. Pius X.

There are no religious in the SSPX. The SSPX is an Association of Secular Clergy. They are not part of the Church’s body of consecrated religious. They fall under the category of Society of Apostolic Life. They work and live in community, but do not make vows, nor have a rule, nor are they bound to their community as are religious. They have the same status as Maryknoll, Missionhurst, FSSP, and Institute of Christ the King. They can leave at any time and join another society that will accept them or any diocese. Religious cannot do that without permission from the Holy See.

Fourth, the Society of St. Pius X has always recognized the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments

Fifth, the Society of St. Pius X is not “against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church”. They recognize BXVI as Pope despite their disagreements over particular issues. Just because their society is currently canonically irregular does not mean they are “against the Pope”. In fact they are more “for” the Pope than many bishops & priests in “full communion”.

Sixth. the Society believes the NOM is “legitimate” in the sense that it is a Mass approved of by the Pope, despite the fact they have severe criticisms of it.

All this is true. The problem they face is the first point. They are not in regular communion with the Pontiff. This was said by the Holy Father himself. Regardless of what we may think of Bishop X or Bishop Y because of his position on certain matters or his behavior, as long as he has faculties, he is in full communion with the Pontiff. He may be a lose canon, but he’s a lose canon whom the Pope recognizes as being in communion. In the case of the SSPX, Pope Benedict himself as said that they have no canonical status and cannot exercise legitimate ministry in the Church. This would include the in the groups that the Holy Father says one may not support, until their status us fully restored.

We may not like it, but the statement seems to be that anyone who is not in communion with the Holy Father is not to be followed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

I like these articles : they express rights of laity and priests to have the Forma extraordinaria if they desire it … and insure no monkey biz is to happen… the priest must be apt and there isn’t any wiggle room for novelties

1. It is the task of the Diocesan Bishop to undertake all necessary measures to ensure respect for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
2. In the case of a priest who presents himself occasionally in a parish church or an oratory with some faithful, and wishes to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria, as foreseen by articles 2 and 4 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the pastor or rector of the church, or the priest responsible, is to permit such a celebration, while respecting the schedule of liturgical celebrations in that same church.
3. Even in sanctuaries and places of pilgrimage the possibility to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria is to be offered to groups of pilgrims who request it (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 § 3), if there is a qualified priest.
4. The faculty to celebrate sine populo (or with the participation of only one minister) in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite is given by the Motu Proprio to all priests, whether secular or religious (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 2). For such celebrations therefore, priests, by provision of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, do not require any special permission from their Ordinaries or superiors.
5. The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to be used as they are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are obliged to follow them correctly.
6. Permission to use the older formula for the rite of Confirmation was confirmed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (cf. art. 9 § 2). Therefore, in the forma extraordinaria, it is not necessary to use the newer formula of Pope Paul VI as found in the Ordo Confirmationis.
7. If there is a qualified priest, a coetus fidelium (“group of faithful”), which follows the older liturgical tradition, can also celebrate the Sacred Triduum in the forma extraordinaria. When there is no church or oratory designated exclusively for such celebrations, the parish priest or Ordinary, in agreement with the qualified priest, should find some arrangement favourable to the good of souls, not excluding the possibility of a repetition of the celebration of the Sacred Triduum in the same church.
8. The use of the liturgical books proper to the Religious Orders which were in effect in 1962 is permitted.

 

[JReducation]

I like these articles :

1. It is the task of the Diocesan Bishop to undertake all necessary measures to ensure respect for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
2. In the case of a priest who presents himself occasionally in a parish church or an oratory with some faithful, and wishes to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria, as foreseen by articles 2 and 4 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the pastor or rector of the church, or the priest responsible, is to permit such a celebration, while respecting the schedule of liturgical celebrations in that same church.
3. Even in sanctuaries and places of pilgrimage the possibility to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria is to be offered to groups of pilgrims who request it (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 § 3), if there is a qualified priest.
4. The faculty to celebrate sine populo (or with the participation of only one minister) in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite is given by the Motu Proprio to all priests, whether secular or religious (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 2). For such celebrations therefore, priests, by provision of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, do not require any special permission from their Ordinaries or superiors.
5. The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to be used as they are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are obliged to follow them correctly.
6. Permission to use the older formula for the rite of Confirmation was confirmed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (cf. art. 9 § 2). Therefore, in the forma extraordinaria, it is not necessary to use the newer formula of Pope Paul VI as found in the Ordo Confirmationis.
7. If there is a qualified priest, a coetus fidelium (“group of faithful”), which follows the older liturgical tradition, can also celebrate the Sacred Triduum in the forma extraordinaria. When there is no church or oratory designated exclusively for such celebrations, the parish priest or Ordinary, in agreement with the qualified priest, should find some arrangement favourable to the good of souls, not excluding the possibility of a repetition of the celebration of the Sacred Triduum in the same church.
8. The use of the liturgical books proper to the Religious Orders which were in effect in 1962 is permitted.

That’s a very good summary.

These articles answer many questions that the faithful, the bishops, the priests and the religious superiors had.

I know that in my community the big question was whether or not our ordained brothers needed permission to celebrate the EF when there is no congregation. It was always clear that they need permission to celebrate mass at all. They need permission to celebrate the EF for the faithful. This point was unclear in SP. The few men that do celebrate the EF were asking for permission, just in case. This way they would not end up celebrating an illicit mass. They usually do not have to ask for permission to celebrate mass. Most superiors just give a blanket permission. But the superior does reserve the right to restrict the ordained, if it’s for the good of the community, because they’re expected to concelebrate, if they don’t have a good reason to celebrate mass alone or to sit in the pews with the other brothers. If a man is making himself absent too often, because he wants to celebrate the EF and the community does not have a daily EF, then the superior can step in stop it. What he’s stopping is the isolation, not the EF. This was a point that was not clear until today.

The same applies to the use of the 1962 breviary. It can only be used if the superior of the house approves it, because the entire house has to pray together. Now that it is clear that the breviary can be used, it’s up to the local superior to approve its use in his house. My guess is that Provincial Superiors and General Superiors may require that they be asked first. They may not like the idea of one house doing things differently, because religious come and go. Not a year goes by when someone is not transferred. The bigger the community, the more likely to have many transfers. You almost have to lock everyone into one breviary and one missal.

For the superiors of large orders, this is going to be a balancing act. I’m so glad that I was already a superior and can’t be elected again for at least 12 years. By that time I’ll be either dead or too old.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cetil]

Bold is mine.

Neither bishops nor religious superiors can invoke obedience here for several reasons.

1. Diocesan and other secular priests do not make a vow of obedience. They promise to obey their bishop. However, the bishop’s authority to command is limited to ordinary matters. The bishop cannot command what is out of the ordinary. Since this is the extraordinary form of the mass, the bishop cannot command a priest to celebrate it. It has to be negotiated between the bishop and the individual priest, in the event that it’s the bishop who initiates. Summorum Pontificum gives secular priests the right to celebrate it without the permission of their bishop. It calls upon the bishops to facilitate the EF when it’s requested. It does not give the bishop the right to command a priest to celebrate it.
2. If the priest is a member of a religious order, he has a vow of obedience. His vow is to obey the pope, his founder, the rule and constitutions, the superior and his brothers when they speak at a chapter. Unless the founder or the chapter determine that the priests in their community must celebrate the EF, the superior cannot command it. Religious superiors of men can only command

a) what the constitutions allow them to command

b) what the founder allows them to command

c) what Canon Law allows them to command (Canon Law tries to stay out of the internal affairs of religious)

d) what the subordinates vote on . . . the Superior must enforce it

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Nothing that you are saying in #1 is sourced so I gather that is your personal opinion.

C.

 

[At_Trent]

Not to get off topic, but the USCCB website doesn’t even mention this document that was released today, not even in their news section.

Well, I can’t say why they have not commented, but personally I think we’ll see more thoughtful comments from the world’s bishops after they have had time to take it all in.

I’m more curious about what we will see said about the UE down the road a bit. At least from prominent clergy, and not necessarily “popular clergy”.

 

[JReducation]

Nothing that you are saying in #1 is sourced so I gather that is your personal opinion.

C.

It’s not sourced? Have you ever met a secular priest in vows?

Have you ever seen a Canon that grants bishops indiscriminate authority over his clergy?

Do you understand why they are called “secular”? They retain the secular status and freedoms: to own property, to live independently, and to do whatever they wish when no on duty.

Extraordinary is a legal term that means not common.

It has never been the practice of the Church to command the extraordinary, neither to seculars nor to religious. However, in the case of religious, the extraordinary can become the ordinary if it is in the mind of the founder or in the statutes of the religious order.

No it’s not my opinion. It’s what I know from experience of many years and what you can see in Canon Law. If the law does not oblige priests to obey bishops beyond the ordinary, then bishops cannot command beyond that.

Also, Canon Law is very clear that secular clergy PROMISE obedience, they don’t vow obedience. It’s in the Rite of Ordination to the Order of Deacon, that’s when the secular cleric promises obedience. A promise and a vow are not the same. A vow is much more solemn and binds you in many areas of life that a promise does not. The promise binds the secular cleric to obey in matters of diocesan policy and in whatever rights the Canons grant to the bishops, as well as whatever the Holy Father commands.

If the man is a religious, this part of the rite is skipped. He cannot promise to obey the bishop, because bishops have no jurisdiction over religious, unless the religious is employed by the diocese. Then he is bound to obey the same regulations as the diocesan clergy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

Nothing that you are saying in #1 is sourced so I gather that is your personal opinion.

C.

The SP, the letter that followed, and now the UE say the same thing as far as the EF is concerned. Isn’t it fairly reasonable to assume what Br JR stated ?

 

[JReducation]

Well, I can’t say why they have not commented, but personally I think we’ll see more thoughtful comments from the world’s bishops after they have had time to take it all in.

I’m more curious about what we will see said about the UE down the road a bit. At least from prominent clergy, and not necessarily “popular clergy”.

I think today was not a good day for the US bishops to take it all in. May and June are horrid months for bishops. Trust me, I work for a diocese. They have confirmations, ordinations, graduations, transfers, the fiscal year comes to an end in June. There are assignments to be made. Seminarians are finishing their school year and have to be placed for the summer. This is the time when religious superiors and bishops talk about next year. Are the religious going to stay on? What do they want to do? What does the bishop need? How many religious can the orders and congregations provide? It’s hectic. I don’t know who keeps up that site. I use it quite a bit, but I’ve never really asked. I don’t foresee the US bishops meeting on this until after June, maybe after summer vacation. It 's a very hectic time of year. We have to be patient with the bishops right now.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cetil]

It’s not sourced? Have you ever met a secular priest in vows?

Have you ever seen a Canon that grants bishops indiscriminate authority over his clergy?

Do you understand why they are called “secular”? They retain the secular status and freedoms: to own property, to live independently, and to do whatever they wish when no on duty.

Extraordinary is a legal term that means not common.

It has never been the practice of the Church to command the extraordinary, neither to seculars nor to religious. However, in the case of religious, the extraordinary can become the ordinary if it is in the mind of the founder or in the statutes of the religious order.

No it’s not my opinion. It’s what I know from experience of many years and what you can see in Canon Law. If the law does not oblige priests to obey bishops beyond the ordinary, then bishops cannot command beyond that.

Also, Canon Law is very clear that secular clergy PROMISE obedience, they don’t vow obedience. It’s in the Rite of Ordination to the Order of Deacon, that’s when the secular cleric promises obedience. A promise and a vow are not the same. A vow is much more solemn and binds you in many areas of life that a promise does not. The promise binds the secular cleric to obey in matters of diocesan policy and in whatever rights the Canons grant to the bishops, as well as whatever the Holy Father commands.

If the man is a religious, this part of the rite is skipped. He cannot promise to obey the bishop, because bishops have no jurisdiction over religious, unless the religious is employed by the diocese. Then he is bound to obey the same regulations as the diocesan clergy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

To answer your first question, No it is not sourced as you did not provide any sources.
I think whether a priest would be compelled to obey to offer the EF is a matter for a higher authority here. What you are offering is your own opinion.

C.

 

[At_Trent]

I think today was not a good day for the US bishops to take it all in. May and June are horrid months for bishops. Trust me, I work for a diocese. They have confirmations, ordinations, graduations, transfers, the fiscal year comes to an end in June. There are assignments to be made. Seminarians are finishing their school year and have to be placed for the summer. This is the time when religious superiors and bishops talk about next year. Are the religious going to stay on? What do they want to do? What does the bishop need? How many religious can the orders and congregations provide? It’s hectic. I don’t know who keeps up that site. I use it quite a bit, but I’ve never really asked. I don’t foresee the US bishops meeting on this until after June, maybe after summer vacation. It 's a very hectic time of year. We have to be patient with the bishops right now.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree, the UE is just a follow up/clarification of sorts. They will get to it as you say.

 

[JReducation]

To answer your first question, No it is not sourced as you did not provide any sources.
I think whether a priest would be compelled to obey to offer the EF is a matter for a higher authority here. What you are offering is your own opinion.

C.

Slow down here. Let’s assume you’re the bishop or the religious superior. Take your pick.
If you want to impose something on the clergy, then you need to find the canons that allow you to do so. This is where you (as the bishop or religious superior) will run into obstacles).

Canonically, secular clerics do not make vows. They do not vow obedience. They make a promise to obey, but it has traditionally been applied to those things that the bishop can legally command.

Canon law says that religiuos may vows of obedience, but major superiors can only command what is allowed by the community.

If you’re a bishop, you would have to find a canon that allows you to command the extraordinary. You will not find it.

If you’re a religious superior, the extraordinary becomes ordinary if it’s built into your statutes. Even there, if it’s not in the statutes, it’s extraordinary. The constitution, the rule and the founder tell you what you can command and what you cannot command. You don’t have a free hand.

If you were a bishop and you commanded any priest to celebrate the EF, he can decline. If you push the issue he has legal recourse against you. The UE has safety measures built in for this. Observe what it says.

**10. § 1. The Pontifical Commission exercises this power, beyond the faculties previously granted by Pope John Paul II and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, artt. 11-12), also by means of the power to decide upon recourses legitimately sent to it, as hierarchical Superior, against any possible singular administrative provision of an Ordinary which appears to be contrary to the Motu Proprio.

§ 2. The decrees by which the Pontifical Commission decides recourses may be challenged ad normam iuris before the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.**

The Ordinary cannot act contrary to the Motu Proprio. He may not prohibit the EF. That’s clearly stated in the Motu Proprio. He cannot command it, because that’s not authorized by the Motu Proprio.

If he oversteps the Motu Proprio, the priest has legal recourse and can take it as far as a tribunal.

Bishops and religious superiors cannot govern without boundaries. The boundaries are different for each. In fact, the bishop has more restrictions on him than does a religious superior, because Canon Law says very little about the rights of religious superiors. It leaves that up to the rule. However, it does say quite a bit about the rights of a bishop. If it’s not in the law, the bishop may not do it, unless he has permission from the Holy See.

If you’re the bishop in this situation, what you want to command is neither in Canon Law nor in Summorum Pontificum. Therefore, you cannot command it. In order to command, you must receive the authority to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF