Vatican says Jewish prayer complaints excessive

[JReducation]

The EF parishes that I have attended only celebrate the EF, and I know that many of these priests will refuse to say the OF, thus it’s no surprise that the Triduum is celebrated according to the ancient rite at these parishes.

The bold is mine. They are not allowed to refuse to celebrate the Ordinary Form. They may refuse to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, according to current liturgical law, but not the Ordinary Form. If a bishop or in the case of religious, the Major Superior, demands that they celebrate the Ordinary Form, they must do so. The bishops and the Major Superiors cannot demand the Extraordinary Form.

The logic behind this is that the one is the Ordinary Form. If the priest only celebrates the EF, then there is nothing extraordinary about it. This was explained very clearly in our community to those brothers who are priests. They must ask for permission from the Minister to celebrate the EF in any chapel that belongs to the community and they may not refuse to celebrate the OF or they can be suspended by the Major Superior.

If the priest is working in a diocesan parish, he must follow the rules of the diocese, unless the religious superior says otherwise. But no one can refuse to celebrate the OF.

The exception to that are those communities like the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (former Transalpine Redemptorists), Fraternity of St. Peter, Fraternity of Christ the King and those societies that were founded around the Gregorian form.

The priest that you may be referring to may belong to one of these societies. But you regular secular priest who is a diocesan priest or a regular priest who is a religious may not refuse to celebrate the Ordinary Form. That is the form that is ordinary to the diocese or to the religious community. Such a refusal would cause a division in a diocese or within a religious community.

That’s the reason that the Gregorian priests are all secular, except for the Sons of the Holy Redeemer who are religious. Secular Gregorian priests are grouped into societies that answer to Ecclesia Dei Commission. By grouping them into societies that are not under the direction of the local bishop, there is no conflict within the diocese. The local bishop does reserve the right to uninvite any secular society or religious community into his diocese.

Any secular priest that belongs to a diocese has to follow the diocesan guidelines. Any religious priest must follow the guidelines of his Major Superior.

Have you noticed that the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word on EWTN do not celebrate the Extraordinary Form? The celebrate the Ordinary From in Latin. The Council of Franciscan General Superiors did not grant a blanket permission for friars to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. Any ordained friar must approach his superior and ask for permission. The Motu Proprio only applies the blanket permission to secular priests, not to religious friars, monks, brothers or canons who are priests.

Even in the case of secular priests, the bishop determines when it is pastorally necessary and appropriate. Any priest can celebrate it alone. The bishop cannot stop him. But in a parish, that’s the bishop’s domain.

The rules are complex.

JR

 

[JReducation]

The EF cannot be used for Triduum services in a parish which offers both the EF and OF. An EF only parish would not revert to OF for the triduum. Nor would a parish, for example, served by the FSSP switch to the OF just for the Triduum.

Thanks for that clarification. I remember that point was discussed at our chapter, because we have many diocesan priests who are also Secular Franciscans. I remember that the point was whether they could or could not celebrate the EF at Easter. The Minister said something, but I was distracted and didn’t catch the whole thing. That was what was said, along with the fact that those who belong to religious orders, secular or regular, must comply with the internal rules of the order and the diocese, if they work for a diocese.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Danoli;

You don’t have to apologize to me, for nothing I have presented came from myself, but from the Church established by Jesus Christ. I’m merely sharing what the Church has taught me.

I

Think of it this way. They don’t necessarily reject Christ, for they have not come to kown Him, through faith. Knowledge of Christ does not equal faith. Also, we don’t know the reason why Christ has not revealed Himself to them, as He has to us who have faith. However, often the reason why they have not been open to Christ, is because of how professed Christians treated them.

Christ statement that no one comes to the Father except through me, means that regardless of how they go to the Father, it is through Him, even though they don’t know Him.

Christ brings man to the father, not religion.

God’s mercy is beyond our understanding.

God Bless
Jim

Brother Jim:

This is very sound theology.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[GodsGadfly]

They don’t necessarily reject Christ, for they have not come to kown Him, through faith.

Maybe because Catholics are afraid of doing their job of evangelizing to non-believers?

What about all the passages like the one about the Gentiles coming to dine with the Patriarchs while the children wail in the darkness?

Instead of developing complex arguments about how non-believers might get into Heaven without sacramental grace, why not actually do something to teach them about Jesus? Consider St. Francis Xavier’s words about priests who sat in universities arguing finer points of theology instead of doing missionary work.

Plus, people in these extra ecclesia nulla sancta discussions act as if non-Catholics never sin.

Let’s look at St. Augustine and his argument for limbo: “My dad wasn’t Catholic.” “My dad was virtuous.” “Therefore, there must be some special place for virtuous non-believers.”
Well, no. According to the developed teaching of the Church, if St. Augustine’s dad was sincerely looking for truth, and/or if he repented in his dying moments, he might have a chance at Heaven. But St. Augustine’s mom was a Christian and tried desperately to get her husband and sons to convert.

This is where the Church says that, if you are knowledgeable of Catholic teaching, and reject it consciously, then you are culpable for that.

Yes, I would argue that those (like, for example, C. S. Lewis) who have directly bad experiences with the Church may have a chance at getting into heaven. But then there are questions about the individual’s ability to forgive, etc.

We must avoid the sin of presumption.

That includes assuring ourselves of our own guiltlessness in regard to confession and assuring ourselves of others’ “baptism by desire” when we ought to be evangelizing to them.

And that gets back to my other point: we act as if non-Catholics don’t actually sin.
St. Augustine assumed his dad was virtuous. Even if his dad seemed virtuous, no one knows what his dad harbored in his heart, or his dad may have done things that St. Gus just didn’t know about or ignored.

A non-Christian is not culpable for what are speciifcally “Catholic rules” or things that pertain to Divine Revelation (though a Protestant is culpable for what is revealed in Scripture and a Jew is culpable for what is revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures).

So forget whether or not a non-Catholic accepts Jesus. The real question is how it is possible for a non-Catholic to live without sinning, without sacramental grace.

There is still going to be a huge culpability for mortal sins on that person’s conscience.

That isn’t to say that God can’t forgive those people. It’s just to make the point that these discussions ahve to take all that into consideration.

The Sacraments are the ordinary means of people receiving God’s salvific grace. The Church leaves the door open that God may have extraordinary ways of reaching out to souls who lack the Sacraments. However, she advises us not to presume so. If it happens, it is very rare.

 

[GodsGadfly]

Even in the case of secular priests, the bishop determines when it is pastorally necessary and appropriate. Any priest can celebrate it alone. The bishop cannot stop him.

I think you’re confusing the situation pre-Summorum Pontificum with the situation now.

The whole point of Summorum Pontificum is that the parish priest does not need the bishop’s permission. Benedict says in the cover letter that John Paul II intended Ecclesia Dei to provide open permission, and that a bishop’s job was to allow it when requested. But since the bishops were interpreting Ecclesia Dei to say they could deny permission, Benedict said that, basically, he was cutting them out of the process.

If the people request it, the pastor has to allow it. The bishop’s job now is to intervene on behalf of the people if the pastor refuses, and then the Ecclesia Dei commision intervenes if the bishop refuses.

As for the other part, under SP, if the parish is a regular parish, it has to offer the OF at leaset once for every major feast day and Sunday. The EF cannot replace the OF at a regular parish, but it can be offered on any day of the year.

Now, on the Triduum, that creates issues, sine there’s technically only suposed to be one Holy Thursday Mass and one Good Friday service.

OTOH, SP grants permission for EF-only parishes–many of which ahve already sprung up, anyway–along the same principles as in Anglican Use parishes.

As you say, the Fraternities can only use the 1962 Missal (JPII was insistant on that, though it’s unclear whether SP has changed that rule or not).

Odds are, as you say, if a person is attending a TLM-only parish, it’s staffed by one of the Fraternities (like St. Francis de Sales in Atlanta).

But even if it’s a TLM-only parish staffed by a diocesan or religious priest (like St. Joseph’s in Rchmond), everyone going to that parish knows it’s a TLM parish. SP grants permission for such parishes to exist. So how could a parish that is permitted to exist as an exclusively TLM parish be forced to use the OF?

 

[JReducation]

But even if it’s a TLM-only parish staffed by a diocesan or religious priest (like St. Joseph’s in Rchmond), everyone going to that parish knows it’s a TLM parish. SP grants permission for such parishes to exist. So how could a parish that is permitted to exist as an exclusively TLM parish be forced to use the OF?

Please excuse me for cutting the top half of your post. I just need the space. Your final question has great validity. Not being a liturgist, I can only guess at a reply. My area of training is Mystical Theology. But from the few courses in liturgy and Canon Law that we had in grad school I’ll attempt to extrapolate a response. Do not take it to the bank. Just take it as an honest attempt to make sense of the current situation.

If you have a parish that celebrates only the Gregorian form, now called the Extraordinary Form (EF), not TLM, obviously such a condition exists because it has the approval of the Holy See and the local bishop. Here is the tricky part about this. The Motu Proprio gave permission for the EF to be celebrated throughout the world, but it never took away the local bishop’s authority as the supreme liturgist for his diocese. It only says that the bishops cannot deny a priest the privilege of celebrating the Gregorian form (EF). It does not say that the bishops must allow exclusive EF parishes in their dioceses.

My guess is that if such a parish does exist in any diocese, it is as a result of the will and pleasure of the local bishop. Priests cannot found parishes, much less turn them into EF exclusive parishes. Only the bishop can erect a parish. If the bishop is the only one who can erect a parish, it stands to reason that the bishop can also lay down the rules under which the parish operates.

I’ll offer an example. When our parish was founded 25 years ago, it was founded by secular priests who were diocesan. Almost 10 years ago our friars were invited to take over the parish because the diocese was growing in the number of Catholics and could not keep up. The needed the help of religious.

The Order put before the bishop the conditions under which they would take up the parish.

1. The superior must always be a lay brother, never a priest.
2. The house must have at least one lay brother, obviously the superior.
3. The pastor was to submit to the superior of the house in all matters regarding his religious life and duties within the community.
4. The friars were to be called Brother and there would be no visible distinction between the lay brothers and the ordained brothers.
5. The Major Superior would assign the friars to the parish.

The Bishop’s response was the following.

1. The superior could be a lay brother and the pastor could serve under the jurisdiction of the superior as long as the superior did not interfere in the matters of the parish.
2. The superior could guide, supervise, correct and discipline the pastor and associates in any manner consistent with the rule and constitutions of the order.
3. The friars would all be known as Brother and there would be no visible distinction in dress, rights, privileges and duties except those that arise from ordination.
4. The Major Superior could not assign the pastor. He had to submit the name to the bishop and the bishop had to approve the nomination.
5. There could be lay brothers in the house, but the diocese would not pay for their services. It would only pay for the services of the ordained brothers.

The deal was agreed upon and signed to be reviewed every three years.

The point that I’m trying to make is that the existence of a parish is not really a matter of the laity or the clergy wanting it one way or the other. The bishop and the major superiors are the ones who have all the cards in their hands. The priest, be they diocesan or religious, have to submit to the terms of the card players. They really have no voice in the matter.

It is true that you can have an exclusively EF parish, but it only exists because the Bishop allows it, not because SP said so. SP does not speak to this. It only speaks to the form of the mass as being available to the people and the right of priests to celebrate it. But it does not tie the bishops’ hands as to the conditions and the rules on how to apply it. And in the case of religious, the Motu Proprio is very clear that this is an internal matter of the religious institute. The Holy Father did not and does not want to meddle in the internal affairs of religious orders and religious congregations, especially those of Pontifical Rights. That gets very hairy.

If there is a parish that has exclusive EF masses, it is because someone allowed it. That same authority can also disallow it.

Remember, this is my extrapolation. I could be completely wrong. I’m just remembering how the negotiations went when our friars came to our local parish. The friars and the laity had no voice in the matter. They were not even consulted. The Major Superior and the Bishop negotiated the contract and then informed the laity and friars “this is how it is to be. Take it and like it.” It’s a little tough, but that’s the way the Church operates. Power is vested only in a few people.

JR

 

[Cluny]

What boggles my mind is that anyone would make such a big deal about one line that is said once a year and even then, only at a Mass that very few Catholics are able to attend.

---

And it’s not even a mass, on top of that!

 

[dans0622]

Freshman

Really? What about the souls who will leave or reject the Church because of this poor decision?

I don’t think he’s hated, but his decisions are questionable, even by Catholics.

False religions is an inflamatory term and insulting to those we’re suppose to show respect and dialog with.

Such words cause more souls to reject Catholicism than accept it.

So much for being concerned about the souls of others.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Who do you think would “leave or reject the Church” because this penalty has been lifted? Why? Also, what makes the Pope’s decision “poor”?

And, could you provide some evidence that using the term “false religion” causes more souls to reject Catholicism than accept it? Obviously, I doubt the truth of this statement of yours–even though I don’t speak of “false religions” myself. If you could back up your claim with some proof, I would appreciate it.

Getting back on topic, it seems these rabbis are looking for reasons to be offended. It is good publicity, that’s for sure.

Dan

 

[Freshman88]

Really? What about the souls who will leave or reject the Church because of this poor decision?

If anyone leaves the faith over this, then I must ask what kind of faith they truly had or were seeking.

I don’t think he’s hated, but his decisions are questionable, even by Catholics.

The Pope is hated by many.It has always been this way, and if it wasnt, id ask what is he doing wrong

False religions is an inflamatory term and insulting to those we’re suppose to show respect and dialog with.

Indeed, we should show respect to false religions. They are still however, false.

Such words cause more souls to reject Catholicism than accept it.

Is still stands as the Truth. The problem is not with the character of the Church, which is the seat of the fullness of revelation and Truth but with how we present this fact. As St. Francis De Sales said; we must cook the Truth with charity until it tastes sweet. He said this as he actively, gasp converted fellow Christians.

There is a way to show them that their faith is false, and Holy Mother Church is correct while exercising great amounts of charity. We shouldnt be shying from the Truth for any reason, there may be better ways to present said truth, but that truth still remains - Holy Mother Church has the fullness of Truth. We especially shouldnt be hitting other Catholics on the head for discussing this fact.

So much for being concerned about the souls of others.

Yes, because by refraining from praying for their conversion in the public prayers of the Church, we will accomplish exactly that.

 

[Freshman88]

The Catholic faith has the fullness of truth revealed to us, but as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have stated, other religious also have truths as well, and were we see these truths, we should not reject them just because they come from a non-Catholic religion.

Jim

Those Truths have one end point; Holy Mother Church. They are but stepping stones to the fulness of the Truth.

 

[Freshman88]

…
JR

Very long post, thanks, but I was already aware of this.

The parishes I attend are EF communities, so these priests are not wrong at all.

 

[KingAlfred]

One should not shy away from proclaiming that Catholicism is the only true religion. This hasn’t ever changed.

Amen. We don’t owe any apologies, and shouldn’t be swayed by popular grumbling. Personally, I’m very proud of the fact the Catholic Church remains free from excessive Jewish influence, which is something we can’t say about evangelical Christianity.

 

[Eucharisted]

The Pope is a sign of contradiction

 

[Valke2]

And now His Holiness has brought back into commion the Bishops of the SSPX, one of whom is known as a holocaust denier. Despite his very unsavory opion our Holiness has decided to put the salvation of souls ahead of this man’s opinion of history.

In the end you have to love how this man is hated by the world.

Many prayers for our Holiness so he will never cave into false religions.

what about caving in to false history?

 

[redrosetea]

Nothing like practicing someone elses faith for them is thre?

 

[JLSamuel818]

John Paul II… how I wish you did not go home with God just yet. I miss and need you here. I fear and doubt Peter’s new successor.

I love His Holiness with all my heart but I do doubt. I love my older brothers of the Jewish Community. I fear that those 50 years of reconciliation has really been destroyed. John Paul II, I know you tried so hard to bond our communities with the Jewish Faith. I miss your direction, your strength, your leadership, your mercy…

I will oblige and submit to all of His Holiness’s decisions for it is right to do so. I submit to the Church, to the Pope, and to God regardless of how I may feel.

Still however, I miss John Paul II.

-Cries

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

John Paul II… how I wish you did not go home with God just yet. I miss and need you here.I fear and doubt Peter’s new successor.

I love His Holiness with all my heart but I do doubt. I love my older brothers of the Jewish Community. I fear that those 50 years of reconciliation has really been destroyed. John Paul II, I know you tried so hard to bond our communities with the Jewish Faith. I miss your direction, your strength, your leadership, your mercy…

I will oblige and submit to all of His Holiness’s decisions for it is right to do so. I submit to the Church, to the Pope, and to God regardless of how I may feel.

Still however, I miss John Paul II.

-Cries

Quotes in bold are my doing for highlighting purposes.

Doubt is not a feeling. We are coming out of the haze that the smoke of Satan caused when it entered the Church after Vat.II, which wasn’t the purpose of Vat.II as some would argue, just less than orthodox elements of the hierarchy seized the opportunity for their agenda, which is being rectified by a preeminent theologian who knows what is orthodox Catholic Christianity.

The rabbis seem to be of the same Pharisaic mindset that separates the Justice of God from His Love. I would welcome them praying for me to our God, but being the “light unto the Gentiles” (Isiah 49:6) doesn’t seem to be part of the equation anymore.

On the other end of the scale, the religiously permissive members of Catholicism seem to separate the Love of God from His Justice, which makes relativistic the path to salvation. As long as you are nice and a good person then Buddha is enough truth to set you free. BXVI’s (as Cardinal Ratzinger) letter on relativism in 1997 as well as his two encyclicals treat these topics with aplomb.

 

[numealinesimpet]

If I understand the Motu Proprio correctly, the Extraordinary Form cannot be used for the Easter celebrations. I’m not sure if that means only the Easter mass or the entire three days from Holy Thursday to Easter Sunday. The wording is not very precise.

Maybe someone who regularly attends the EF may know this. This may have been why you ran into an English language service.

JR

I thought the MP stipulated only that there is to be no admixture: The Triduum may be celebrated in either form, but for the whole 3 days according to only one of the forms.

 

[cathgal]

John Paul II… how I wish you did not go home with God just yet. I miss and need you here. I fear and doubt Peter’s new successor.

I love His Holiness with all my heart but I do doubt. I love my older brothers of the Jewish Community. I fear that those 50 years of reconciliation has really been destroyed. John Paul II, I know you tried so hard to bond our communities with the Jewish Faith. I miss your direction, your strength, your leadership, your mercy…
-Cries

What would you have the Pope do…eliminate that piece of prayer for the conversion of Jews ??

You would then have them confirmed in their erroneous belief.

Think about it…is that wise ?

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

 

[cathgal]

Freshman

Really? What about the souls who will leave or reject the Church because of this poor decision?

In case you don’t know or remember, the SSPX was NOT excommunicated because of denying the Holocaust.

After all, you can’t excommunicate anyone who denies the Holocaust can you. That person has no sense of what excommunication means

I don’t think he’s hated, but his decisions are questionable, even by Catholics.

This ain’t the only decision questionable by Catholics but does the Church care…nooo !

False religions is an inflamatory term and insulting to those we’re suppose to show respect and dialog with.

Such words cause more souls to reject Catholicism than accept it.

So much for being concerned about the souls of others.
Jim

So what term can you use to define something that is false ?

bogus, phony, fake, sham, articficial, fictitious, made-up, wrong, ‘not quite right’, ‘not exactly’, ‘almost right’ ??

Pick one and we’re use it, but don’t say anything equiv to ‘true’ cause it’s already used by the Church.