Universae Ecclesiae

[At_Trent]

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.

From what has been defined as a qualified priest in regards to praying EF, I don’t think we’d see a qualified priest refuse to pray the EF. To qualify in the first place, requires quite a bit of effort, a priest would do this willingly. So why would he refuse, short of being asked to allow a novelty tainted EF or similar ?

 

[Cetil]

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

Your argument seems to rest on the point you made earlier that saying the EF would come under the definition of an “extraordinary” task simply because it is the EF. But we read in this clarification: “they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor.”
Both are “alongside the other” so I don’t necessarily buy that it would be extraordinary to assign a priest the task of saying it. The clarification makes it clear that any priest is now considered “qualified”. I think further research may show that there are priests out there who have been assigned the task of saying the EF who did not really want to.
I would abide by any decision of the "Ecclesia Dei commission of course.
Now, I have just received ten demerits for “being rude” to you. I dispute that and now happily resign from the forum.

C.

 

[laszlo]

From what has been defined as a qualified priest in regards to praying EF, I don’t think we’d see a qualified priest refuse to pray the EF. To qualify in the first place, requires quite a bit of effort, a priest would do this willingly. So why would he refuse, short of being asked to allow a novelty tainted EF or similar ?

I did not followed the preceding discussion but according to the Universae Ecclesiae to be qualified (idoneous) means that

• he can celebrate Mass licitly
• he can pronounce the Latin words and understand the meaning
• celebrated TLM at least once and present himself spontaneously

This last condition excludes anyone who do not want to celebrate TLM.

For the question why not to present himself spontaneously the answer is obvious: he has stable number of faithful for the new form Mass, significantly larger number then the petitioners for the TLM.

I thank to God, that I do not have to make such decision, but my natural decision would be to ask the TLM petitioners to collect signatures from identifiable registered parishioners who attend daily Masses, that they accept the TLM (once a weekday, more than once, on Sunday too). If they can get at least two third of the regular attendance than would make a trial.

We must understand that there is an extreme shortage of priests. Those who want TLM if they are single have to consider vocation, if they are married have to make many children and raise the boys to be priest. One have to do what he can in his/her own, not to blame others.

 

[Cat]

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.

I absolutely agree with this. Middle and high school is the time to attempt to instill a passion for a foreign language.

Once a person is in college, financial obligations often make it difficult to discover and/or pursue a passion. The important thing is finishing a course of education and managing to find a way to pay for it, and then making use of the course of education to find a position in life that will provide enough financial support.

While they were growing up, my daughters attended a secular private prep school that offered classes for children aged 3 through 18. (Pre-school through 12th grade). It was expensive (around $10,000/year per child).

French was required for all students from pre-school through high school. This goes back some 80 years to the founding of the school. French is an international language of business, and is spoken in many countries on all continents, including here in the U.S.

Beginning in 6th grade, students could take other languages, including Latin or Spanish. Many of the students chose Latin and stuck with it for seven years. By the time they graduated, they could write papers in Latin, as well as translate. Our school is recognized as one of the best schools in the country to learn Latin. The students routinely win high honors and awards in the National Latin Exam and other venues.

For many of the kids who choose to take Latin, it becomes a passion. Our school not only teaches Latin, but they teach what is called “the classics” in connection with Latin. The kids learn all about Rome, the great philosophers and scholars, various works written in Latin, etc.

Many students from our school chose to continue their studies in Latin in college and beyond.

I’m pretty certain that the local Catholic high school offers Latin. There is also an “alternative” Catholic high school (more traditional), and this school offers Latin. But I don’t hear about high achievements in Latin scholarship from the Catholic schools.

If I were a Catholic parent in my city who wanted my children to learn to love Latin and become a Latin scholar and possibly (for boys) a priest who loves Latin and the TLM, I would opt to send my children to the SECULAR private school in my city, rather than the Catholic schools. I know this seems contrary, but when we look at the statistics, it becomes obvious that the secular school routinely produces Latin scholars, while the Catholic schools do not.

I realize that most of you do not live in my city. The point that I’m making is that you might need to do some careful research in your city or town to discover the best place for your children to learn Latin. Look for a school or setting that is most likely (statistically) to train them to achieve scholastic excellence on the National Latin Exam and other educational evaluation venues, and to impart to them a lifelong passion for Latin and the classics.

 

[Sirach2]

I thank to God, that I do not have to make such decision, but my natural decision would be to ask the TLM petitioners to collect signatures from identifiable registered parishioners who attend daily Masses, that they accept the TLM (once a weekday, more than once, on Sunday too). If they can get at least two third of the regular attendance than would make a trial.

Nevertheless, the pastor is obligated by the Summorum to offer the OF liturgy for the parish, first and foremost. He cannot substitute the EF if a small number of people ask for it, unless he is one of those priests who are not formally obligated to celebrate three masses per weekend; i.e., the vigil Saturday evening, the regular Sunday liturgy for his parish, and the third for a partner parish that has only one weekend liturgy on Sunday.

Our pastors were assigned mass times by the bishop when 14 parishes closed and merged with partner parishes. There just aren’t enough priests to offer a EF liturgy as an extra mass on Sunday, nor even on weekdays. They can only say one mass per weekday, and the OF comes first by way of obligation.

Remember also, that priests are called upon during the week for funerals in addition to the regular daily mass. It is unthinkable that they would be required to say a third mass for the few who would attend this, nor do I believe it is allowed. Article 16 of UE mentions the importance of working within the parish schedule.

That leaves a visiting priest who would be able and willing to celebrate at a particular parish, but it would be extraneous to the regular schedule, and advance notice would need to be scheduled in the bulletin.

Since both liturgies are sacred, it is hard for me to understand that a very small minority would ask additional duties of a priest, just to satisfy their longing for the 1962 missal. I don’t think anything will change in this regard. In fact, as elderly priests die and have few replacements, our diocese anticipates that it will get even worse.

The questions asked will not be, “Can I have my own preferred liturgy?” but, when can I attend ANY liturgy? Gone are the days of pastor and associate, with all our priests managing huge parishes by themselves, and/or also a partner parish.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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

Just a further point of clarification.

Br JR already cleared up the religious part of this statement.

The SSPX does have lay members as they have a Third Order.

 

[MikeDunphy]

1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria

A definition is a brief description, not a name. The new Mass is the ordinary, i.e. usual, form of the Mass in our time. The pope is describing the way things are; I don’t see where he tells people to stop using the phrase Novus Ordo and start saying Extraordinary Form instead.

 

[BenedictOblate]

I do like being a member of the diocese of Lincoln, because the OF is reverent and we have access to the EF since the English speaking FSSP seminary is only a few miles away and we have a FSSP church in town.

My preference is the OF, but I am awed by the reverence in the EF. I was blessed to be able to attend an ordination of the FSSP priests and it was amazing. While I respect, support and admire the EF, I can’t deny the fact that I wouldn’t feel “at home” if I attended it regularly.

 

[laszlo]

I do like being a member of the diocese of Lincoln, because the OF is reverent and we have access to the EF since the English speaking FSSP seminary is only a few miles away and we have a FSSP church in town.

My preference is the OF, but I am awed by the reverence in the EF. I was blessed to be able to attend an ordination of the FSSP priests and it was amazing. While I respect, support and admire the EF, I can’t deny the fact that I wouldn’t feel “at home” if I attended it regularly.

The reverence is the important, not the form.

 

[BenedictOblate]

A definition is a brief description, not a name. The new Mass is the ordinary, i.e. usual, form of the Mass in our time. The pope is describing the way things are; I don’t see where he tells people to stop using the phrase Novus Ordo and start saying Extraordinary Form instead.

Isn’t the phrase Novus Ordo often used in a derogatory manner?

 

[JReducation]

I did not followed the preceding discussion but according to the Universae Ecclesiae to be qualified (idoneous) means that

• he can celebrate Mass licitly
• he can pronounce the Latin words and understand the meaning
• celebrated TLM at least once and present himself spontaneously

This last condition excludes anyone who do not want to celebrate TLM.

This is what I was trying to help Celt see. You have to be qualified. Part of being qualified is having the desire to celebrate the EF. The document does not say that you can force someone to celebrate it.

We must understand that there is an extreme shortage of priests. Those who want TLM if they are single have to consider vocation, if they are married have to make many children and raise the boys to be priest. One have to do what he can in his/her own, not to blame others.

This is a good suggestion, as long as parents keep in mind that there is no guarantee that Christ will call one of their sons to be a priest. If he calls one of their sons to be a priest, there is no guarantee that he will call him to celebrate the EF.

We also have to remember that it’s not just a matter of studying Latin. For example, look at the Franciscan family. If you have ever seen mass on EWTN or heard Fr. Benedict Groeschel or Cardinal O’Malley or any other Franciscan, you will notice that we are all fluent in Latin. We require at least two-years of Latin studies. Many of us have more than two years. I had six-years. However, we do not require our men to use it. It is required, because it is helpful for academic studies, especially philosophy, theology, mathematics, and science.

Some houses use it, because they vote on it. Even then, after they vote on it, they have to inform the Major Superior of their decision. There is a valid reason for this. People are transferred all the time. The larger the obedience, the more likely that you’ll gain and man and lose a man every summer. That means that every time you gain and lose, you may get one person who either wants Latin or hates Latin. To avoid this problem, certain houses are known for their Latin and you try to assign those who want to use Latin.

Life is never so easy.

A definition is a brief description, not a name. The new Mass is the ordinary, i.e. usual, form of the Mass in our time. The pope is describing the way things are; I don’t see where he tells people to stop using the phrase Novus Ordo and start saying Extraordinary Form instead.

The reason for this emphasis is the fact that bishops and the Major Superiors of Religious Men do not want the terms: Novus Ordo or Traditional Latin Mass, because they’re inaccurate. Every revision of the mass is new when it is first issued. The revised form of the Tridentine mass of 1963 was new at that time. The Pauline mass was new 40+ years ago. Now, we’re getting another revised missal for the celebration of the OF in English. When the new saints and collects are added to the missal of 1963, there will be new elements in that too.

In reality, the term “novus” does not work nor does traditional, because nothing stays new forever nor does anything stay unchanged forever.

The Holy Father and the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship have changed all of their documents and books to say EF and OF. The hope is that the laity and clergy will follow along. The reason for the term “extraordinaria” is because in law, something that is not the norm, is either an indult or enxtraordinary. They wanted to take away the term “indult”. An indult can be repealed at any time by any bishop. If it’s extraordinary, it’s not an indult. The bishop cannot drop it. It may not be the norm, but it’s valid and legal and more importantly, it’s not an exception to the rule. An indult is an exception to the rule.

Does that help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

Since both liturgies are sacred, it is hard for me to understand that a very small minority would ask additional duties of a priest, just to satisfy their longing for the 1962 missal.

Problem there is, you don’t understand what the pope has stated. There are not two liturgies, there are two forms of the Latin Rite. OF and EF.

And while you and others may not understand the pastoral needs of those who have a spiritual thirst for the EF, the pope does understand and that is the purpose of the SP, the letter that followed, and now the UE.

A group that wants the EF and has a priest qualified and willing to pray it can’t be denied the EF. No matter what excuse clergy that don’t want to be bothered with it come up with.(thank you Papa BXVI )

Any laity who don’t desire the EF, well, their opinions mean nothing at this point. Unless they think they can pick and choose what directives the pope has laid out.

 

[Sirach2]

At Trent:

A group that wants the EF and has a priest qualified and willing to pray it can’t be denied the EF.

You forgot the qualilfier, that it must be in accord with the parish schedule. You did not address the fact the the S.P. also mandated that the OF cannot be set aside in lieu of the EF, just because a group asks for it. The OF must be celebrated first for the parish. Do you need the paragraph that outlined this?

 

[Lormar]

Problem there is, you don’t understand what the pope has stated. There are not two liturgies, there are two forms of the Latin Rite. OF and EF.

And while you and others may not understand the pastoral needs of those who have a spiritual thirst for the EF, the pope does understand and that is the purpose of the SP, the letter that followed, and now the UE.

A group that wants the EF and has a priest qualified and willing to pray it can’t be denied the EF. No matter what excuse clergy that don’t want to be bothered with it come up with.(thank you Papa BXVI )

Any laity who don’t desire the EF, well, their opinions mean nothing at this point. Unless they think they can pick and choose what directives the pope has laid out.

 

[At_Trent]

Isn’t the phrase Novus Ordo often used in a derogatory manner?

That is what it was named by the clergy when it was introduced. Novus Ordo Missae = New Order of Mass.

When it is abbreviated to NO Mass, some read it as “no mass”. Yes, some less charitable folks twist it to imply it is “no” mass, but that doesn’t mean those without ill intent are disrespecting the OF when they refer to it as the Novus Ordo.

Obviously, H.H. prefers we call it Ordinary Form. We can look for reasons to imply that is a bad term as well. For example, one could invite a friend to a TLM and say " it is stunning when compared to the ordinary Mass".

Sometimes we find too much time on our hands

 

[At_Trent]

You forgot the qualilfier, that it must be in accord with the parish schedule. You did not address the fact the the S.P. also mandated that the OF cannot be set aside in lieu of the EF, just because a group asks for it. The OF must be celebrated first for the parish. Do you need the paragraph that outlined this?

Where did I imply an OF Mass be set aside, or it’s time changed ?
I didn’t forget anything. You are just looking for wiggle room and excuses imo.

 

[At_Trent]

Just sayin, that’s what the SP and UE says

 

[JReducation]

Problem there is, you don’t understand what the pope has stated. There are not two liturgies, there are two forms of the Latin Rite. OF and EF.

And while you and others may not understand the pastoral needs of those who have a spiritual thirst for the EF, the pope does understand and that is the purpose of the SP, the letter that followed, and now the UE.

A group that wants the EF and has a priest qualified and willing to pray it can’t be denied the EF. No matter what excuse clergy that don’t want to be bothered with it come up with.(thank you Papa BXVI )

Any laity who don’t desire the EF, well, their opinions mean nothing at this point. Unless they think they can pick and choose what directives the pope has laid out.

I’ll piggy-back here by saying that people are nourished by different forms of Christian spirituality. There is only one Christian spirituality. But there are many expressions of the same.

Just as one person is more Carmelite, more Franciscan, more Benedictine or more Ignatian, the same applies to how people are nourished at the mass. If we can provide forms of the mass that respond to these spiritual needs, then we should do it.

What is important here is to avoid the negative comments about priests. There I’ll have to pick on your statement above, AT

Priests are like everyone else. They’re on a spiritual journey and they are nourished by different expressions of Christian spirituality and different forms of the mass. Not every priest who refuses to use the EF is being mean. It’s simply not something that will help him. He has a duty to take care of his spiritual needs first.

I’ll give a simple example. I only use Latin when I attend an EF mass. I had six-years of Latin in my formation. Franciscans require at least two-years, more depending on your degree and area of study. I don’t speak it like Cicero, but I can read it and I can write it. I actually spell better in Latin than in English. Scary, isn’t it? Anyway, I don’t need Latin to pray. It does not do much for me. I can enter into contemplation in any language. I pull my cowl over my head and shut out the world around me and I’m OK. I don’t run away when I hear Latin, either. That’s ridiculous behavior.

You forgot the qualilfier, that it must be in accord with the parish schedule. You did not address the fact the the S.P. also mandated that the OF cannot be set aside in lieu of the EF, just because a group asks for it. The OF must be celebrated first for the parish. Do you need the paragraph that outlined this?

Actually, it cannot cause an inconvenience to the parish or the diocese. Many people did not understand why the priests in religious orders are not allowed to celebrate the EF in public without permission, why the permission is limited to solo celebrations. Here it is. A religious community has to maintain consistency in its liturgical life. You can’t have its members doing their own thing all over the place. It’s an inconvenience to the religious community. This is the same in a parish or a diocese.

Pastors and bishops have to help facilitate the EF, but they may not sacrifice the rest of the community. In most dioceses in the USA the diocesan priests outnumber regular priests. This is not the case in the developing nations. They have more regular priests than diocesan. That’s another situation that has to be faced by the bishop. If you have five parishes run by Order X and the superior does not allow the EF, what do you do? You can’t suppress them. That’s illegal and you can’t replace them, even if you could suppress them. You can’t overrule the superior. Superiors of men, need not be priests to have the same authority over their men that a bishop has over his own. This is a situation where you have an inconvenience. This is where the juggling begins. Hopefully, the Ecclesia Dei Commission can provide a priest for this setting. Or they can beg with the Major Superior to give one of his men permission to celebrate the EF. The Commission cannot overrule the superior. It has to use diplomacy.

It’s going to be a juggling act.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

Bro JR, I’m talking about priests who want to pray the EF. If a priest doesn’t want to pray the EF, that’s fine with me. I don’t want to assist a Mass with a priest who doesn’t want to pray it.

But in cases where those who want the EF have a qualified priest, the UE implies “let them have it”

We can make a list of reasons and excuses a mile long, but it’s really as simple as unlocking a door to a church and letting them in. Can’t any pastor take 5 minutes to hand another priest a key ?

 

[cyejbv]

Priests are like everyone else. They’re on a spiritual journey and they are nourished by different expressions of Christian spirituality and different forms of the mass. Not every priest who refuses to use the EF is being mean. It’s simply not something that will help him. He has a duty to take care of his spiritual needs first.

A religious community has to maintain consistency in its liturgical life. You can’t have its members doing their own thing all over the place. It’s an inconvenience to the religious community. This is the same in a parish or a diocese.

It’s going to be a juggling act.

BrJR, do offer simple explanations for dumb people? UE for Dummies?

You seem patient and knowledgable, and despite my reading, reading and reading I, as a layperson, don’t get the BASICS of how or if this will impact our parish or diocese and ultimately the Church.
Specifically: how will the OF change? Like, we will kneel rather than stand? On the tongue, not in hand? I know some of the responses will be as from the 1962 Missal, right? Or am I way off base?

Also, I had hoped EF would be offered at our parish; while I get both forms are valid I probably hoped it more because our music makes me cringe, squirm and think uncharitable thoughts. So EF isn’t necessarily going to be implemented … right? I can ask my priest but it’s up to him, not the parish ‘right’ to have EF, correct?

If you would be so kind as to spell out for me a few basic points, you would be contributing to the formation of our youth as well, since I have NO idea how to simply explain this to my tween.
(Note: as a mother, I will use guilt as needed. I hope it worked here )

Pax!