Vatican forces bishop to provide Latin Mass; overturns restrictions

[diggerdomer]

Most of the bishops thought it was silly.

I have no idea if that’s true or not. Seems as though you have an inside track to the Bishops. Assuming what you said is accurate, how sad the there is such a division among the leaders of our Church.

Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

The Bishops have no right to deny the TLM.

Please read Summorum Pontificum --carefully and objectively, if possible–and after that then let us know what you think.

Cheers

 

[palmas85]

Yes it does.

Art. 5: “In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.”

**The key phrase is “where there is a stable group …who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition…”

Not some group that now wants to celebrate according to the old tradition, but an EXISTING group.
**

Yes…but, again, only for a stable (i.e. pre-existing) group. Not for some who newly come forward saying hey they’d like to check this thing out.

Yes this is an option. But let’s be realistic. Given all the parish closings and mergers going on, do we really think a Bishop would establish a new parish for the sole purpose of those who had been worshipping according to the previous Rite?

Just my personal opinion, I doubt it. By the way, the parish I go to also hosts a community that worships according to the 1962 Missal. There has been no clamor for erecting a parish for them, things are working fine without that.

Cheers.

Please point out where the word stable specifically means a pre-existing group. This is the same lime of reasoning that Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles used to put forth his opinion that only those who had been alive in 1962 and actively attending the Mass in 1962 could even attend an indult Mass. Stable does not necessarily mean pre existing, although I can certainly see why those opposed to a wide spread application of the SP would read it so and definitely want it to be so

And in any event, article 5 does not trump article 1 or article 4 which rather obviously gives ALL priests the right to celebrate the aforementioned Mass regardless as to if anyone attends or not. and gives the faithful the right to ask to attend such a Mass and assures that they would have no problem doing so.

There is absolutely nothing that says you must have a pre existing group that makes the request in order to have the Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal. If you think it does then please point it out. And please don’t try to substitute the word stable for pre existing. It just doesn’t work.

It is amazing the lengths that those who oppose the widespread application of the Traditional Mass will go to to in order justify non compliance with the directive of the Holy Father.

 

[larousser]

“Stable group” is a mistranslation of the motu proprio, and probably a willfull one.

wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/back-to-the-question-of-stable-group/

Cardinal Hoyos, the man charged with overseeing the motu proprio’s implementation said in response to this question:

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: That is the clear evidence as to how, regarding this motu proprio, pseudo-news[reports] were spread out by those who had not read the drafts or by those who, in an interested manner, wished to influence its elaboration. I have followed the entire iter which has led to the final text and, as I recall, no minimum limit of faithful ever appeared in any draft, not of thirty, not of twenty, not of a hundred.

 

[Dauphin]

Yes it does.

Art. 5: “In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.”

The key phrase is “where there is a stable group …who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition…”

Not some group that now wants to celebrate according to the old tradition, but an EXISTING group.

This is a totally deceptive interpretation. In his letter accompanying the Motu Proprio, the Pope spoke of the many young people who were discovering the Traditional Latin Mass, and his desire to make room for this preference.

Cardinal Castrillon, the head of the pontifical commission responsible for overseeing the Motu Proprio, has said that a priest can simply decide to celebrate a public, regularly scheduled TLM even if he isn’t approached to do so. Through him, the Pope has called on all seminaries to start teaching the Old Mass. This is open promotion. It flies completely in the face of the absurdly restrictive interpretation you’re applying here, which would deny me my rights as a Catholic to the Mass of all time simply because I wasn’t born into it.

 

[diggerdomer]

Please point out where the word stable specifically means a pre-existing group. This is the same lime of reasoning that Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles used to put forth his opinion that only those who had been alive in 1962 and actively attending the Mass in 1962 could even attend an indult Mass. Stable does not necessarily mean pre existing, although I can certainly see why those opposed to a wide spread application of the SP would read it so and definitely want it to be so

And in any event, article 5 does not trump article 1 or article 4 which rather obviously gives ALL priests the right to celebrate the aforementioned Mass regardless as to if anyone attends or not. and gives the faithful the right to ask to attend such a Mass and assures that they would have no problem doing so.

There is absolutely nothing that says you must have a pre existing group that makes the request in order to have the Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal. If you think it does then please point it out. And please don’t try to substitute the word stable for pre existing. It just doesn’t work.

It is amazing the lengths that those who oppose the widespread application of the Traditional Mass will go to to in order justify non compliance with the directive of the Holy Father.

I am not a Latin scholar, I was simply going off the English translation I found on EWTN and Zenit. I did find, though, that the Latin word used is “continenter” and not “stabiliter” and so “stable” may not be the optimal English translation. I can’t comment on anything about Cardinal Mahoney as I’m not familiar with it. But back to the issue at hand, I did find a posting from a priest who’s a canon lawyer and he translated the word as “continuously” vs. “stable.” I am of course not qualified to opine on the technical significance of which word is best…but either way I think the intent of SP is clear in this specific context–this specific article or paragraph is addressing existing communities who have been celebrating the 1962 Rite. Whether we call such groups stable or continuous I’ll leave to canon lawyers and Latin scholars. Reading that article of SP, though, I can’t see how else to understand it except that it applies to groups/communities that have been celebrating according to the 1962 Missal; it does not apply to people who now may want to celebrate that way (not that there’s anything wrong with that, just that this article is not pertinent to such people).

Yes, SP gives all priests the right to celebrate the 1962 Rite but only in the cases of “Mass without the people.” That’s in article 2 of SP. The following articles denote when celebrations according to the 1962 Rite may be held with communities. The parameters are pretty restrictive, as I read them. This is not because I am for or against it, I’m just reading what the motu proprio says. The point is, it’s clear that individual priests may celebrate this Rite relatively freely, but it’s mostly under the condition of “mass without the people.” The faithful are welcomed to join such celebrations, but that’s different than saying the new groups of the faithful who want to now start celebrating according to the 1962 Missal can demand accommodation.

Again, I am not a Latin scholar or canon lawyer, and as I’ve shared the parish I worship at has a group celebrating Mass according to the 1962 Rite every week. I’ve been to their liturgy. I have no problem with them or their liturgy, and I hope they will enhance our parish life.

If you’re implying I’m opposed to the 1962 Rite you’re wrong. Whether the 1962 Rite should be widespread is a matter of opinion.

Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

“Stable group” is a mistranslation of the motu proprio, and probably a willfull one.

wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/back-to-the-question-of-stable-group/

Cardinal Hoyos, the man charged with overseeing the motu proprio’s implementation said in response to this question:

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: That is the clear evidence as to how, regarding this motu proprio, pseudo-news[reports] were spread out by those who had not read the drafts or by those who, in an interested manner, wished to influence its elaboration. I have followed the entire iter which has led to the final text and, as I recall, no minimum limit of faithful ever appeared in any draft, not of thirty, not of twenty, not of a hundred.

I have no idea if the translation is wrong, or willfully wrong. I tend to trust those translating. I can’t believe our Church would willfully wrongly translate something.

I have seen a posting from a priest who’s a canon lawyer that translates the word as “continuously” rather than “stable.”

Regardless of the precise word used…what’s your point?
Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

This is a totally deceptive interpretation. In his letter accompanying the Motu Proprio, the Pope spoke of the many young people who were discovering the Traditional Latin Mass, and his desire to make room for this preference.

Cardinal Castrillon, the head of the pontifical commission responsible for overseeing the Motu Proprio, has said that a priest can simply decide to celebrate a public, regularly scheduled TLM even if he isn’t approached to do so. Through him, the Pope has called on all seminaries to start teaching the Old Mass. This is open promotion. It flies completely in the face of the absurdly restrictive interpretation you’re applying here, which would deny me my rights as a Catholic to the Mass of all time simply because I wasn’t born into it.

Cardinal Castillon may have said that, but it’s not in Summorum Pontificum (SP) that a priest can simply decide to celebrate a public regularly scheduled TLM. I’ve read SP. It says priests can celebrate freely “mass without the people.” It says the faithful are free to attend such celebrations. That’s different than saying a priest can individually decide to celebrate a public regularly scheduled liturgy according to the 1962 Missal.

If you disagree, show me where in SP I can learn more.

Cheers

 

[larousser]

I have no idea if the translation is wrong, or willfully wrong. I tend to trust those translating. I can’t believe our Church would willfully wrongly translate something.

I have seen a posting from a priest who’s a canon lawyer that translates the word as “continuously” rather than “stable.”

Regardless of the precise word used…what’s your point?
Cheers

The translation you are getting is wrong, and it changes the meaning of the text. Only the original Latin has validity, not any translation into the vernacular. Furthermore the Latin on the USCCB website is different from that on the Vatican website. The USCCB inaccurately uses ‘stabiliter’; on the official Vatican website, and that published in the official AAA, it says ‘continenter’.

 

[CradleCath]

=diggerdomer;4970054]Yes it does.

Art. 5: “In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.”

The key phrase is “where there is a stable group …who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition…”/

Actually the words you selected are the “I need an excuse not to allow a Latin Mass” phrase. I can pretty much guarantee that traditional Catholics will be “stable”. They WILL be at Mass, not just on Sundays when it’s handy, but EVERY Sun., EVERY holy day & many will attend the EF. during the week if it’s offered. The truly “key phrases” are : "the pastor should** willingly** accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and **ensure that the welfare **of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish,

Not some group that now wants to celebrate according to the old tradition, but an EXISTING group.

Where have you gotten this idea. A stable group is a stable group…whether it’s a new one or a group that’s been in the parish for years! I don’t understand your statement above???

Yes this is an option. But let’s be realistic. Given all the parish closings and mergers going on, do we really think a Bishop would establish a new parish for the sole purpose of those who had been worshipping according to the previous Rite?

While it’s true that some Bishops have picked specific parishes in which the Latin Mass is to be offered, none that I know of are new. In fact, in my area, churches that somehow managed to avoid the wreckovation following Vat. II have been chosen for the Latin Mass. They have an altar rail where one can kneel to receive the Eucharist, the altar has not been destroyed in favor of the table & the Tabernacle is still on the Altar. It hasn’t been moved to the crying room, the vestibule or any of the other locations that seem so popular for it to dwell these days. Plus, this isn’t really necessary. My parish offers both the Novus Ordo & the Tridentine Mass. And, did it ever occur to you that when the Barney Masses give way to the TLM., the Church closings will drastically decrease??

 

[diggerdomer]

The translation you are getting is wrong, and it changes the meaning of the text. Only the original Latin has validity, not any translation into the vernacular. Furthermore the Latin on the USCCB website is different from that on the Vatican website. The USCCB inaccurately uses ‘stabiliter’; on the official Vatican website, and that published in the official AAA, it says ‘continenter’.

Yes, I saw that as well…please read my earlier post 26 where I specifically noted that I recognized that…so, again…what’s your point?

Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

A

Where have you gotten this idea. A stable group is a stable group…whether it’s a new one or a group that’s been in the parish for years! I don’t understand your statement above???

I’ve gotten this idea from reading the English language. I’ve seen the word translated in English as either “stable” or “continually.” Something could not be stable or continuous unless it had existed for some period of time. that’s just simple English grammar and logic.

If I started doing something today that I’ve never done before it might be good or enjoyable or whatever…but I could not yet call it stable or continuous. That would take time.

Cheers

 

[larousser]

Yes, I saw that as well…please read my earlier post 26 where I specifically noted that I recognized that…so, again…what’s your point?

Cheers

Whoops, I had not read that you had conceeded that stable group was an inaccurate translation. I generally only read responses that are directed to me. Sorry.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve gotten this idea from reading the English language. I’ve seen the word translated in English as either “stable” or “continually.” Something could not be stable or continuous unless it had existed for some period of time. that’s just simple English grammar and logic.

If I started doing something today that I’ve never done before it might be good or enjoyable or whatever…but I could not yet call it stable or continuous. That would take time.

Cheers

Does it really matter unless you have a priest that knows how to say the Latin Mass and is willing to say it for a stable or an unstable or continuous (whatever that means) group? There aren’t that many priests to begin with, much less ones which know how to say the Latin Mass. And it takes time to train them, regardless of the demand.

 

[Corki]

Galveston-Houston?(a guess) Just curious.

Yep. :sad_yes:

Yes it does.

Art. 5: “In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.”

The key phrase is “where there is a stable group …who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition…”

Not some group that now wants to celebrate according to the old tradition, but an EXISTING group.

Even if your interpretation of existing group is correct, it doesn’t say anywhere that they have to be people already going to a Latin Mass. Even in my tiny parish (only about 500 families) there are enough people who would love the chance to attend a Latin Mass to call us a group (about 35 people). At the next closest parish, over one hundred parishioners signed a request for a Latin Mass. That’s definately an existing group.

Yes…but, again, only for a stable (i.e. pre-existing) group. Not for some who newly come forward saying hey they’d like to check this thing out.

Every one who comes forward is going to be coming forward newly. Before SP, there was no reason to request of your pastor that he say the older Mass because it wasn’t possible under the indult. I agree that it seems to discourage someone from going to a parish not their own and trying to get a 1962 Mass going.

Yes this is an option. But let’s be realistic. Given all the parish closings and mergers going on, do we really think a Bishop would establish a new parish for the sole purpose of those who had been worshipping according to the previous Rite?

Just my personal opinion, I doubt it. By the way, the parish I go to also hosts a community that worships according to the 1962 Missal. There has been no clamor for erecting a parish for them, things are working fine without that.

That’s great for you but we have no such option here. The only community that worships solely according to the older Missals are the SSPX ones (and I think there are some sedevacanist communities near here). It would be different if we already had a FSSP presence here.

And our diocese, thankfully, is not closing or merging any parishes. We are opening and expanding instead. There is a new parish being built in a town near me that already has 3 parishes (one of which has an FSSP-trained pastor). Most of the existing parishes already have priests saying thier legal limit of Masses each Sunday. It makes much more sense to have a EF community here than to try to squeeze a EF Mass into an already crowded parish Mass schedule.

 

[twf]

diggerdomer:
Some bishops are establishing new parishes for the Extraordinary Form community. In my own archdiocese (in Canada), we had an FSSP run EF community that borrowed various local churches to celebrate mass; Sunday high mass was celebrated in one parish, daily low masses in another, and Sunday morning low mass at still another. After *Summorum Pontificum * was issued, the archbishop converted what had been a personal German parish into a personal EF parish, giving the community their own church building, rectory, hall, etc. Incidentally, as the FSSP has provided this relatively small parish with two full-time priests, the traditionalists of our archdiocese probably have the best priest to laity ratio BY FAR in the region…

 

[diggerdomer]

Y At the next closest parish, over one hundred parishioners signed a request for a Latin Mass. That’s definately an existing group.

No, that’s a potential group. If they are not currently (prior to SP) celebrating the 1962 Missal they are not an existing group.

Every one who comes forward is going to be coming forward newly.

No, there are and have been existing groups who celebrated the 1962 Missal Rite. The intent of SP–as I understand it (and believe me I know I may be misinformed, that’s why I am here, to learn)–was to broaden the availability of this prior liturgical form. Not as a recruitment tool, i.e. not so those who had no affiliation with it would all of a sudden join in, but to make it easier for those who were already attached to it to have the sense that what they were doing was fully in communion with the Church. To make it easier for them to continue worshipping as they were, without as many restrictions as existed previously under the indult.

I may not have worded that as best I could, I’m sure others will jump on me for something.

Cheers

That’s great for you but we have no such option here. The only community that worships solely according to the older Missals are the SSPX ones (and I think there are some sedevacanist communities near here). It would be different if we already had a FSSP presence here.

And our diocese, thankfully, is not closing or merging any parishes. We are opening and expanding instead. There is a new parish being built in a town near me that already has 3 parishes (one of which has an FSSP-trained pastor). Most of the existing parishes already have priests saying thier legal limit of Masses each Sunday. It makes much more sense to have a EF community here than to try to squeeze a EF Mass into an already crowded parish Mass schedule.

 

[Chiltepin]

Yep. :sad_yes:

Yeah sounded like it could have been, but I’m not sure how we stack up against other Texas Diocese. There is not a lot of hope for getting one on my side of town (NW Houston.)

I know that Annunciation has a Tridentine Mass (downtown Houston across from Minute Maid Stadium.) It is a very beautiful church. It’s pretty far for me, and it sounds like you are in a smaller town.

St. Theresa’s in Sugarland had a trial-run. If attendance kept up it was going to be permanent. Unfortunately it was on a weekday and not offered every week, so it was hard for people to remember when it was offered. So that is no more.

Good luck to you, in whatever corner of the diocese you are in!

 

[Corki]

No, that’s a potential group. If they are not currently (prior to SP) celebrating the 1962 Missal they are not an existing group.

I am sorry but that is ridiculous. If that were the case, SP would have been unnecessary since your definition would only cover those who already had access to an indult Mass. The letter and introduction to SP are clear in the fact that this MP was necessary because of the indult not being used “widely and generously” as it was supposed to be.

Why would there be a need for Article 7 of SP with instruction about what to do if the pastor does not “willingly accept thier request” and an instuction to the Bishop to go to the Ecclesia Dei commission for assistance? These articles are irrelevant if there are already indult Masses sufficiently serving the needs of the people.

also note this paragraph in the beginning of SP

But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult 'Quattuor abhinc anno," issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter given as Motu Proprio, ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.

Not that the word “adhere” is used regarding members of the faithful before the 1988 MP which allowed indult Masses. This is the same word used in Article 5 so it can’t mean only those already attending a Mass with the Missal of 1962.

 

[Corki]

Yeah sounded like it could have been, but I’m not sure how we stack up against other Texas Diocese. There is not a lot of hope for getting one on my side of town (NW Houston.)

I know that Annunciation has a Tridentine Mass (downtown Houston across from Minute Maid Stadium.) It is a very beautiful church. It’s pretty far for me, and it sounds like you are in a smaller town.

St. Theresa’s in Sugarland had a trial-run. If attendance kept up it was going to be permanent. Unfortunately it was on a weekday and not offered every week, so it was hard for people to remember when it was offered. So that is no more.

Good luck to you, in whatever corner of the diocese you are in!

Yes, I am SW of Houston. We had some of our parishioners who go to Annunciation from time to time but its over an hour away (even at the crack of dawn on a Sunday) so not feasible for regular attendance, especially with small kids.

I attended the EF at St. Theresa’s while it lasted. It wasn’t a weekday; it was 2pm on Sundays but only once a month. Every EF, including a weekday All Souls Mass, had over 200 people there but many were from out of the parish (like me). From what I understand, that’s more than usually attend at Annnciation so I am not convinced that attendance was the real reason it was stopped.

There is a Friday noon EF Mass at the chapel on the University of St. Thomas campus. I haven’t tried that since I couldn’t get back in time to pick up the kids from school.

The Cardinal said in an interview that there were four in our diocese. Even though the interview was after St. Theresa’s stopped holding thiers, I think he included that one in the count. I have never been able to find the fourth one. There is nothing on the diocisan website, no information available when calling the chancery and nothing on MassTimes. He may be counting Queen of Angels in Dickenson or St. Michael’s in Spring but both are SSPX so I hope not. There’s a new one in Brenham. It’s not our diocese but not much farther (and a much prettier drive) than downtown for me.