Vatican forces bishop to provide Latin Mass; overturns restrictions

[rpp]

O.K. I have read all the entries in this thread. My observations:

1. Cheers has learned well his post-Vatican II lessons on how to twist language to accomplish the negation of anything smacking of Orthodoxy.
2. His reading of of SP, like another poster implied, would nullify any need for SP.
3. I even sense the presence of former President Clinton’s logic when Cheers grounds his argument on the meaning of “is”.
4. The purpose of SP is clear to anyone of sound mind and soul; to enable priests and anyone when who cares to attend the ability to participate in the Pre-Vatican II Mass without interference from the Bishop, other than ensuring a proper celebration of the Mass.
5. Still there are Bishops who will do all in their power to devise delaying tactics of all kinds. In my diocese the Bishop has never, even once, to my knowledge made a public statement about SP. Furthermore, he has required that all parishes must get his approval before changing any Mass times at the parish level. This means he can restrict the Tridentine Mass without actually having to admit that is what he is doing.
6. And yes, I am accusing Cheers of intellectual dishonesty. I doubt anyone of good faith could really put forth such nonsense.

By “cheers”, I presume you mean diggerdomer. Yes, I would agree. He (she?), despite his (her) claims to the contrary, seems to not be what he (she) claims. He (she) is particularly critical of any traditional expressions of faith.

Finally it is clear that he rejects the wisdom of the Holy See. When Ecclesia Dei does something in support of the more traditional expressions of faith and the Mass, he calls it “scary”. His opinion is clearly wrong as it has been contradicted by the actions of the Holy See and his response is to use the word “scary” and to do everything to convince us that the Church is wrong. For my part, I will trust what the Church has to say.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t see why this is such a difficult issue for anyone. SP is very clear. Any secular priest can celebrate the Extraordinary Form without asking for permission.

Priests who belong to religioius orders must get permission from their superiors, if the statutes of their order requires such permission. Otherwise, they too can celebrate the EF. Such was the case with the Franciscans. The statutes do require that any friar who is a priest must receive permission from the Major Superior to celebrate any sacrament. The statutes do not say EF or OF, because they were written before SP. The friars had to ask their Major Superior for permission. The permission is granted on an as needed basis. That’s their right and that of any religious community that has such statutes, according to SP.

The only issue that I can see would be if a priest is assigned to a parish, for the sake of logistics, it makes sense that he ask the pastor for a time slot to celebrate the EF. But that’s not the same as asking for permission to celebrate the EF.

SP has some weaknesses in the way that it is written, because it does not address every specific situation that can arise, such as whether or not one can have a parish where all the masses are EF. I’m assuming that these details will be worked out in time. A Motu Proprio is not intended to answer every detail, but to make a statement in broad terms and then work out the details as you go along.

In charity, we have to be careful not to impose the EF on an entire parish or to deny a parish that wants an EF mass and has someone who is willing to celebrate it. Both are extremes that are unjust.

All things regarding the spiritual welfare of people must be governed by charity. I know that in my community the decision was that the EF would not become the official form for community masses. However, any friar who asks for permission to celebrate or attend is granted that permission provided that the brothers in the community vote on it and the majority agree that it would be a good thing.

The logic here is that in a religious community you have to be careful of two things: 1) observe the statutes of the community unless they are changed by the proper ecclesial authority and the MP did not change the statutes of any religious community or demand that they do so; and 2) you must preserve the unity of the religious community If the community is governed by a Major Superior who must first consult with the community chapter, then that’s the proper way to go. Once he has the approval of the Chapter, the Major Superior is free to grant whatever permissions are authorized to him.

The only place where I can see that one woud have to get permission would be in a parish that is run by religious. The bishop cannot demand that they go over the statutes of their community or forbid that they follow them. This is already built into the contract when a religious community and a bishop agree to work together, such as giving them the administration of a parish.

Other than that, these rules do not apply to secular priests. All they have to do is get a time slot from their pastor, not permission to celebrate the EF. It would be unkind of a pastor to deny the priest a time slot, even if he just adds a mass at the end of the morning on Sunday or a second vigil mass on Saturday. If there are no takers for the mass, that’s no one’s fault and another story altogether. But I imagine that at first, even if it is just out of curiosity, there will be people who want to attend. That’s just my guess.

Another possible problem would be where the priest celebrates two masses in the OF. Usually, you need special permission to celebrate a third mass in either form. Two masses in one day is the usual limit. In large parishes with a small number of priests, it is very common to celebrate two masses in one day. Again, the issue is logistics, not whether the secular priest can celebrate the EF without permission. Of course he can, as long as he does not violate Church law by have three masses without the proper permission, in one day.

This issue witht the EF is now becoming childish. It has been authorized. It’s time that people get over it and follow the rules. If you can do it, go for it. If you can’t, then you can’t. Accept it.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[diggerdomer]

Most of the bishops thought it was silly.

If that’s true (and I personally don’t think it is), then wouldn’t it also be true that most of the Bishops are not in communion with the Pope (which I don’t think is true)?

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t see why this is such a difficult issue for anyone. SP is very clear. Any secular priest can celebrate the Extraordinary Form without asking for permission.

Priests who belong to religioius orders must get permission from their superiors, if the statutes of their order requires such permission. Otherwise, they too can celebrate the EF. Such was the case with the Franciscans. The statutes do require that any friar who is a priest must receive permission from the Major Superior to celebrate any sacrament. The statutes do not say EF or OF, because they were written before SP. The friars had to ask their Major Superior for permission. The permission is granted on an as needed basis. That’s their right and that of any religious community that has such statutes, according to SP.

The only issue that I can see would be if a priest is assigned to a parish, for the sake of logistics, it makes sense that he ask the pastor for a time slot to celebrate the EF. But that’s not the same as asking for permission to celebrate the EF.

SP has some weaknesses in the way that it is written, because it does not address every specific situation that can arise, such as whether or not one can have a parish where all the masses are EF. I’m assuming that these details will be worked out in time. A Motu Proprio is not intended to answer every detail, but to make a statement in broad terms and then work out the details as you go along.

In charity, we have to be careful not to impose the EF on an entire parish or to deny a parish that wants an EF mass and has someone who is willing to celebrate it. Both are extremes that are unjust.

All things regarding the spiritual welfare of people must be governed by charity. I know that in my community the decision was that the EF would not become the official form for community masses. However, any friar who asks for permission to celebrate or attend is granted that permission provided that the brothers in the community vote on it and the majority agree that it would be a good thing.

The logic here is that in a religious community you have to be careful of two things: 1) observe the statutes of the community unless they are changed by the proper ecclesial authority and the MP did not change the statutes of any religious community or demand that they do so; and 2) you must preserve the unity of the religious community If the community is governed by a Major Superior who must first consult with the community chapter, then that’s the proper way to go. Once he has the approval of the Chapter, the Major Superior is free to grant whatever permissions are authorized to him.

The only place where I can see that one woud have to get permission would be in a parish that is run by religious. The bishop cannot demand that they go over the statutes of their community or forbid that they follow them. This is already built into the contract when a religious community and a bishop agree to work together, such as giving them the administration of a parish.

Other than that, these rules do not apply to secular priests. All they have to do is get a time slot from their pastor, not permission to celebrate the EF. It would be unkind of a pastor to deny the priest a time slot, even if he just adds a mass at the end of the morning on Sunday or a second vigil mass on Saturday. If there are no takers for the mass, that’s no one’s fault and another story altogether. But I imagine that at first, even if it is just out of curiosity, there will be people who want to attend. That’s just my guess.

Another possible problem would be where the priest celebrates two masses in the OF. Usually, you need special permission to celebrate a third mass in either form. Two masses in one day is the usual limit. In large parishes with a small number of priests, it is very common to celebrate two masses in one day. Again, the issue is logistics, not whether the secular priest can celebrate the EF without permission. Of course he can, as long as he does not violate Church law by have three masses without the proper permission, in one day.

This issue witht the EF is now becoming childish. It has been authorized. It’s time that people get over it and follow the rules. If you can do it, go for it. If you can’t, then you can’t. Accept it.

Fraternally,

JR

Yes it’s authorized but there seems to be differences of opinion on how extensive this authorization is. Read article 5 of SP. That seems to be the focus of different opinions.

 

[JReducation]

Yes it’s authorized but there seems to be differences of opinion on how extensive this authorization is. Read article 5 of SP. That seems to be the focus of different opinions.

What I’m getting out of article 5 is similar to what is in article 3 regarding religious. It’s not a question of whether they can celebrate the EF, but of the proper permission given specific circumstances. The issue is about logistics, not about the permission to celebrate the EF.

With the exception of relgious who may not make the EF their customary form without the permission of their Major Superior. Article 5 is speaking about secular priests who may desire to make this their customary form, but must ask for permission from the pastors or the rectors as to when and where to do so.

I’ll add something else here, just for thought. There are many parish priests who are religious as well. In their case, Art 3 applies. Religious who are priests cannot make the EF their customary form without the permission of their Major Superior, even if they are in a parish. The laity must accept that a Passionist, Carmelite, Franciscan or other religious may not have the permision to celebrate the EF exclusively or even regularly.

SP yields to the authority of the Major Superior and the statutes of the community. I know that in our own parish, people don’t understand that our friars are not “priests”. Three of them are ordained, but there are seven in the parish. The three who are ordained are considered Brothers by the Order. As such they must conform to the wishes of the Order and the Constitutions of the Order, such is the agreement between the order and the bishop.

Because you can’t explain this every Sunday, some people don’t know the difference. They see Father dressed for mass and they assume that he’s like every other priest and has the same freedoms and rights as any other priest.

When our bishop asked the parishes to supply the EF, the friars had to go through their Major Superior to get permission to comply The bishop was very gracious to the religious orders in his diocese and included in his letter a statement that they should seek the proper permissions from their community, but the secular clergy had to begin preparations to provide the EF once a week, except during the Easter Triduum.

I wonder how much of this anger comes from lay people who don’t know the difference between a priest and a religious who is a priest.

Some bishops rather not deal with these distinctions and they take an easy way out by saying that they will not implement SP, because it’s too inconvenient. I’m not accusing the bishop in the OP of this. I’m just presenting a hypothetical situation.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Corki]

Since when are comments made as an introduction to an instructional DVD considered to be the authentic interpretation of the intentions and desires of the Pontiff? How authoritive do you take the following comments by Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos to be?

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804705.htm

Seems to me that picking and choosing unofficial statements that a so-called traditionalist thinks is beneficial to the cause is the favourite pastime. Personally, I’m happy that the EF is now more widely available but the way to authentically promote it is not by attributing something to the Pope’s wishes that he hasn’t stated himself. When the long awaited letter clarifying some of the questions and mis-interpretations of SP is issued, we’ll all know just where the Church stands on the issue. Until then, it’s just a lot of hot air from people who are not satisfied …on either extreme!

As I posted earlier, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is President of the very commission charged with interpreting and implementing SP. So, that’s pretty authoritative. The “long-awaited” letter will be written by him.

 

[Corki]

When our bishop asked the parishes to supply the EF, the friars had to go through their Major Superior to get permission to comply The bishop was very gracious to the religious orders in his diocese and included in his letter a statement that they should seek the proper permissions from their community,** but the secular clergy had to begin preparations to provide the EF once a week**, except during the Easter Triduum.

Fraternally,

JR

Wow! Can I move to your diocese?

 

[rpp]

Yes it’s authorized but there seems to be differences of opinion on how extensive this authorization is. Read article 5 of SP. That seems to be the focus of different opinions.

And the Holy See does not agree with your very anti-Extraordinary Form of the Mass interpretation. After all, it was you who described Ecclesia Dei’s decision as “scary”. So the question is, are YOU in communion with Rome? I am looking for evidence, but I have been unable find any to supports that assertion.

 

[JReducation]

Wow! Can I move to your diocese?

Only if you comply with the following:

1. Bring money, because we’re broke.
2. You are willing to wait for the implementation of the EF, because our diocese is only 50 years old. Therefore, most of our priests were ordained after Vatican II and they have to learn the mass of 1962. The average age of priests in our diocese in 40. This is because we have a secular seminary with over 80 semianrians and three religious seminaries. They bring down the mean age. But the bishop would like to see it implement gradually until every town has one by 2015 and after that every large parish has one.
3. You are willing to live among the largest number of lay ministers that I have ever seen. I’ve lived and worked for five dioceses and this one has the largest number of lay ministers I have ever seen.
4. You should be willing to do hospital ministry. We have the largest number of hospitals that I have ever seen in a small geographic area. I’m talking about large hospitals. We need people who want to work in that ministry.

Other than that, sure, come on down!

Fraternally,

JR

 

[CradleCath]

O.K. I have read all the entries in this thread. My observations:

1. Cheers has learned well his post-Vatican II lessons on how to twist language to accomplish the negation of anything smacking of Orthodoxy.

 

[dans0622]

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’.

Hi larousser,

The Latin text that was first made public said *continenter *but that was replaced by *stabiliter *in the official text promulgated in the AAS. The Vatican website was not appropriately updated. Meanwhile, the English translation of this has always said stably. So, what was originally an interpretational translation turned out to be alligned with the official Latin text.

Dan