Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

error: Post not found!

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Mar 29th 2014 new
(quote) Steve-1074804 said: And I'll also add that the appropriate response to a renegade priest fouling up the cnsecration ro doing anything outside the rubrics and prescriptions of the church is not to ban the Renegade cleric in question not the rite He is celebrating in properly
We do not have all the facts regarding this situation. The man on the outside who perhaps has the most knowledge of the situation, Dr. Taylor Marshall, a very strong supporter of the traditional Mass, has said he feels the Bishop's response was appropriate.

That said, none of us nor Dr. Marshall are ordained clergy, much less in the Bishop's chair with his background, training, and authority of office, nor with the graces that go with it. It is entirely possible that the Bishop's response is completely in accord with God's will. It would not surprise me in the least if some of the restrictions on the EF of the Mass such as at FMC and the FFI are a punishment for the arrogance, lack of charity and humility, and disdain for authority exhibited by large segments of those who are attached to that form of the liturgy. I think a lot more prayer and humility and a lot less chest-thumping would go a long way to achieving a desired outcome to these situations.

Mar 29th 2014 new
(quote) Steve-1074804 said: Alright Paul, to me it seems almost as if my points are not even being read so rather than continue I'd rather not find out where this road leads.
It appears to me that Paul has both read and considered your points and has found them to be without merit, a position with which I concur.

Quoting from the letter from Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops that accompanied Summorum Pontificum:

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese

tinyurl.com
While it may be that for a bishop to arbitrarily prohibit the use of the Extraordinary Form may be contrary to Pope Benedict's intention, I see nowhere that it is contrary to the letter of the law. Nor do I believe that the Bishop's response to the situation at FMC is anywhere close to arbitrary.

Even IF (and I am in no way suggesting this is the case) the Bishop were exceeding his authority, that is no excuse for the response that has followed. The appropriate response is to pray for him (which we should be doing anyway) and to escalate the situation through the chain of command. Consider the difference between Padre Pio's response when he was unjustly punished and what is occurring here -- for the most part by those who are not even affected by the restriction.




Mar 29th 2014 new
(quote) Jerry-74383 said: It appears to me that Paul has both read and considered your points and has found them to be without merit, a position with which I concur.

Quoting from the letter from Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops that accompanied Summorum Pontificum:

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese

http://tinyurl.com/3yhkfz
While it may be that for a bishop to arbitrarily prohibit the use of the Extraordinary Form may be contrary to Pope Benedict's intention, I see nowhere that it is contrary to the letter of the law. Nor do I believe that the Bishop's response to the situation at FMC is anywhere close to arbitrary.

Even IF (and I am in no way suggesting this is the case) the Bishop were exceeding his authority, that is no excuse for the response that has followed. The appropriate response is to pray for him (which we should be doing anyway) and to escalate the situation through the chain of command. Consider the difference between Padre Pio's response when he was unjustly punished and what is occurring here -- for the most part by those who are not even affected by the restriction.




Thanks for your response to this, Jerry. Not that it matters greatly, but I think that Paul, and now you, were actually well to take the Bishop's position in the midst of the mess which those of the ilk of the rorate-caeli blog seem to be fomenting. I, personally, see it clearly within the bounds Pope Benedict XVI set in his Motu Proprio the Bishop's act toward stopping public offerings of the Missa Tridentina without his explicit permission, as does Paul, but it doesn't appear the case that it is clear to everybody. Since this is the case, it seems to me that your suggestion of temperance and patience regardless of how clear Summorum Pontificum is to each of us, is the best position to take.

What I see at least implicitly here in your post, is that we risk calumny to suggest or imply that the Bishop is sinning in his act toward Fisher More College, without there being objective sin, or naming the objective sin.
Mar 30th 2014 new
Chelsea I don't suggest that people have sinned, especially in a public forums. I can however suggest that an action is not consistent with the teachings of the church or her prescriptions or I can suggest that an action appears not to be in line with charity or that a given action makes no sense. I'm not just throwing that out there 'cause I have an axe to grind, I'm saying it because I see the possibility that what we may in fact have here is a situation where if there is trouble associated with parish or group or priest we simply through the liturgy under the bus.

For me to be concerned about that possibility and to then express that concern regarding how it could negatively effect the wonderful liturgies of the church which are held dear by my and have always been held dear by the saint as the source and summit of our grace, is not calumny

To suggest that I may be less than noble for suggesting that the bishop is less than noble when I didn't even suggest that is problematic to say the least.
Mar 30th 2014 new
(quote) Jerry-74383 said: In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese

I already dealt with this and no one has dealt with my response. If you want to reply to my points I suggest replying to my point not simply repeat ing what I responded to and took issue with in the first place.

If however you don't that's fine to, but Id' prefer one or the other to the mere multiplicity of words. and please don't cast dispersions on my character or hint at it as chelsea seems to be doing, intentionally or otherwise, I may not think that what the bishop did makes sense but I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt regarding their soul and motives even when their actions leave me to wonder.

I may be new here but I like this place, and I'm not here to use anyone as a punching bag so don't read that into my posts, cause it just isn't there.

I enjoy honest discussion and debate but this thread is starting to disturb me.
Mar 30th 2014 new
Actually the Bishop's statement is that you can get it at another parish in his Diocese, just not that one. I looked it up on Google Maps; there other parish is about 1-2 miles away. This is not a burden.

You might say it is a burden for college students who don't have a car/can't afford gas. However, Americans need to get more exercise.
Mar 30th 2014 new
Fair enough Alex but I would simply refer a person to the purpose of an on campus chapel and the purpose of having a mass in the first place. As I said before why not just ban all masses and say that there are other places where you can get mass with in the diocese. That wouldn't make sense. This response of the bishops response doesn't make any more or sense. Implicit is the idea (though perhaps not intended) that the Latin mass is a second class mass. The liturgy is not the problem here.
Mar 30th 2014 new
this sentence should read *This response of the bishops doesn't make any more sense*
I really wish there was a way to edit posts.

Mar 30th 2014 new
(quote) Steve-1074804 said: Fair enough Alex but I would simply refer a person to the purpose of an on campus chapel and the purpose of having a mass in the first place. As I said before why not just ban all masses and say that there are other places where you can get mass with in the diocese. That wouldn't make sense. This response of the bishops response doesn't make any more or sense. Implicit is the idea (though perhaps not intended) that the Latin mass is a second class mass. The liturgy is not the problem here.
His letter prohibits 2 things:
  1. Public celebration of the Extraordinary Form at that Chapel
  2. Celebration of the Eucharist at that Chapel by any priest who he has not granted faculties to.
His response makes perfect sense if there is a question of licitness or validity of masses in the Extraordinary Form at that Chapel. A part of his duty as Bishop is to ensure the validity/licitness of the sacraments in his diocese. His specific calling out of another parish for the Extraordinary Form within a reasonable distance makes it clear it is not a problem with the EF in general.
Mar 31st 2014 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: His letter prohibits 2 things:
Public celebration of the Extraordinary Form at that ChapelCelebration of the Eucharist at that Chapel by any priest who he has not granted faculties to. His response makes perfect sense if there is a question of licitness or validity of masses in the Extraordinary Form at that Chapel. A part of his duty as Bishop is to ensure the validity/licitness of the sacraments in his diocese. His specific calling out of another parish for the Extraordinary Form within a reasonable distance makes it clear it is not a problem with the EF in general.
Unfortunately, Alex, we must always remember that, among the self-styled traditionalists, any action by any Bishop for no matter what reasons, to prohibit the celebration of the Mass in the Extraordinary form is a crime of the highest order.

In their minds, they believe that any lay person is absolutely entitled to have the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, at any time, at any place any time they demand. They also believe that a priest saying a Private Mass in the extraordinary form has no right to prevent anyone from attending and that they, as such extraordinarily and exceptionally true Catholics can themselves invite anyone to join them in attending that private Mass.
Posts 91 - 100 of 163