Obeying our Ordinaries
  • I have seen posted several places a story that appeared about a parish in the Diocese of Arlington (Virginia) that was given a gym for its TLM---so instead of two months of complaining, they rebuilt the gym as a proper church.

    I think this is the better way. In fact, the obedient way, the Way of the Cross. In fact, I keep thinking of St. John of the Cross: we are going through nothing like that. And the Chinese faithful right now: they are denied the sacraments, the hierarchy seems to have forgotten them, they are killed.

    In comparison to which, our travails right now are nothing. So first, we should pray for others and ask that we come to see our problems in a truer light.

    But beyond that, I suspect most Bishops want two things: money, and peace. If our Bishop offers us a gym, transform it; if he offers us a beautiful monastery, be grateful.

    And don't be demanding. The Church does not see the TLM as in any way higher (any more than it sees the Eastern Rites as lower or higher). Therefore, acting as if everyone should stand in awe of your devotion to the TLM is not going to impress anyone. Speaking strictly personally, I am not automatically impressed that someone is a Traditionalist. "By their fruits you shall know them." That's the standard.

    Organize, build for the future, educate--all those things. But humility and obedience are the starting points.

    https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/devotions/litany-of-humility-245

    Just some thoughts, given that I myself am blessed to walk with the faithful as the new rules in DC are implemented.

    Blessings,

    Kenneth
  • MarkB
    Posts: 858
    There is also a Thomistic Litany of Humility, very recently penned and inspired by the more well-known litany:
    https://www.dominicanajournal.org/a-thomistic-litany-of-humility/
    Thanked by 1amindthatsuits
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    I don’t know. The outside group which was already using that gym need a new home. The school can’t use it at all.

    The altar looks nice, but the sanctuary is smaller than what was available at Holy Trinity, Gainesville, even though that this style of church is architecturally unsound in the end. This reinforces the role of pews, taking away basically every inch which you could have given over to walking around, and in the US, our choice of solid pews means that they visually take up the entire space. Compare this to much of Europe (like in France) where either wood-and-straw chairs are used, or the pews have a wooden beam for the seat that is not attached to the beam used for the back (there’s a gap between the two pieces in other words).

    They now have to offer more TLMs, which is deceiving, because it’s not really more availability. It’s just that they divided a community and now can’t fit everyone in the gym. The priests now have more work to do on Sundays. These people aren’t welcome in their parishes.

    Many people affected in Arlington don’t have any TLM now. He did cancel some entirely. Others (including some of the ones who lost the TLM) have donated up to thousands of dollars to building and restoring churches, and they only donated having become TLM parishioners. They’d have gone elsewhere earlier without the TLM.

    So yes, we should do the best we can do, but giving the bishop an earful is appropriate and necessary.

    If the bishops want money and peace, kicking people out of their parishes isn’t the way forward. I also don’t know how Bishop Burbidge entirely lost the plot here; September 8 is the day that the father of Fr Vander Woude, pastor of Holy Trinity, died in a septic tank saving Father’s youngest brother (who has Down syndrome) from drowning himself. What is wrong with the bishop who kicks his parishioners out on said anniversary?

    And yeah, I’ll be demanding for my birthright to which I have “rightful aspirations,” particularly when actual heretics and criminals go entirely unbothered or only very minimally so. I note with some disdain that Jacques Gaillot was translated from the see of Évreux to a titular see, having dissented from Ordinatio sacerdotalis, and while he retreated a little bit, he otherwise is free to do what he likes. The major dissenting theologians lost the mandatum, but were not laicized after a heresy tribunal.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • It's very difficult, often onerous, to be obedient to those who are in authority but who's expectations of others is not authoritative - They expect to be obeyed, but themselves are disobedient.. Many of us could name numerous priests, bishops, and on up, who have done all they can to thwart the very oecumenical council and the teachings of popes and saints to destroy and diverge from the clear path in matters liturgical. As we know, scores of examples could be mentioned and are so horrid and familiar that they need not be named. Indeed, if the decisions of the Donatist controversy had gone the other way, these men would all have been cast out long ago.

    Yes indeed, obedience to such persons who don't follow the directive of their betters or of those of the council is aiding and abetting disobedience, and doing so is pure and utter charity; a heavy burden on the conscience. The wielding of authority' that is not 'authentic' is tyranny, a thing that rules over and above genuinely given authority - inauthentic. It is pure charity to put up with it. Such 'authority' is inauthentic, ergo no authority at all. Authority to contradict the ;council's precepts or require others to contradict does not exist.

    And, let us bless those uncounted priests and bishops who do rule authentically and are in obedience to the clear teaching of Vatican II and many prelates, saints, and wise men.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • Diocese of Arlington (Virginia) that was given a gym for its TLM---so instead of two months of complaining, they rebuilt the gym as a proper church.
    Meanwhile some proper churches will doubtlessly be closed. SMH
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Chrism
    Posts: 837
    Yes indeed, obedience to such persons is itself disobedience


    Sounds more like a Founding Father than our Divine Founder: "All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do"

    By my estimation, 98% of people who go the TLM, and the priests who offer it, are models of obedience. They love the Church and offer up the things they don't like. They see unity with their Ordinary, and the Holy Father, as indispensable for their own salvation. It's a shame that the many have to suffer for the tongues of the few.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 181
    There is a way to obey the letter of the law - a Novus Ordo mass in Latin said ad orientem with all the propers and ordinaries in chant.

    The Vatican has said that ad orientem celebration is consistent with the GIRM. Sacrosanctam Concilium states that steps are to be taken so that the people can say or sing those parts of the mass in Latin which pertain to them and that chant is to be preserved. The code of canon law states that the mass is to be said in Latin or an approved translation. Such a mass would be entirely in keeping with the law and would be consistent with the Novus Ordo as being the unique expression of the Latin Rite.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,133
    .
  • Chaswjd,

    So... why is the celebration of the Mass in the manner you describe, following the law and everything, so vanishingly rare?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 181
    @Chris Garton-Zavesky

    I believe that like much of our society, the church has become increasingly polarized. Instead of looking commonality and for ways to live together, we look first at what divides us.

    While I understand that there are reasons to be attached to the 1962 Missal, is it a huge of a betrayal of core principles to have a Novus Ordo Mass, ad orientem, in Latin with chanted ordinary and proper?

    On the other hand, is it really so awful to have communities, even parishes, who want to worship together in Latin, which by canon law is the language of the Latin Rite?

    The church ought to be big enough to have communities of Boomers who want their St. Louis Jesuits and those who want to experience the transcendence of Palestrina or Gabrieli.
  • While I understand that there are reasons to be attached to the 1962 Missal, is it a huge of a betrayal of core principles to have a Novus Ordo Mass, ad orientem, in Latin with chanted ordinary and proper?

    To these groups, yes, at least their loudest advocates. Unfortunately, they stand to take everything else reverent down with them.
  • Chas,

    I'll skip the question you pose about a divided society for the moment. What I meant to raise was the question of being obedient to the Ordinary. If the kind of Mass you describe isn't merely permitted under the law but arguably mandated by it, then celebrating the Ordo of Paul VI in any other way is derogating from the law, isn't it? At least, as the law is written? If the person (or persons) responsible for executing the law, however, think it means something else entirely, so that what the law mandates is, in practice, forbidden, is following the law disobedience?
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 181
    I don’t think that a Latin Mass is necessarily mandated. That said, I don’t know of any bishop who has forbidden a Novus Ordo Latin Mass. I know some have forbidden ad orientem celebrations of the mass. I believe to be in excess of the ordinary’s authority as well as unwise. But the route for correcting that is an appeal to Rome.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    You don’t, but there have been bishops who cracked down on that.

    Rome isn’t going to grant the appeal, not under this pontiff.

    Also, yes, it’s a betrayal of principle; the NOM isn’t the same.

    @Schönbergian, Andrea Grillo doesn’t care what even Taylor Marshall thinks, and it’s not TM’s fault that the pope surrounded himself with people who hate Summorum.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 181
    @ MatthewRoth

    Part of the problem is people view going to a NO mass in Latin is a betrayal of a principle. While we may debate the wisdom of any particular change in the mass following Vatican II, it remains that the church has the power to alter its rites.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW LauraKaz
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    Honestly? Whatever. I don't care. The NO in Latin is not the same as the TLM; how many times am I going to have to repeat myself until you understand? Besides, getting a Latin NO, especially ad orientem, is so monstrously difficult, fraught with choice even if you do somehow get permission (because the Ordinary will feel like he must give permission). Nobody gives two cares about how the Holy See has previously intervened, not under Arthur Roche, the man who served as secretary under the nominal prefect who had been rebuked for encouraging priests to worship correctly. Nobody cares that you can use chant and Latin, because they want the readings (at least) in the vernacular, even though nothing says they must be so.

    The NO was made up from manuscripts and the minds of its redactors such that, when all is said and done, nothing resembles the Roman heritage which is my (our) birthright. It doesn't resemble Sacrosanctum concilium much at all, and that document is neither particularly trad (so the 1965 revisions were insufficient) nor sufficiently revolutionary (meaning that the revolution had to move beyond it beginning on day 1).

    So forgive me if I don't especially care for the NO in Latin and wouldn't go out of my way to make sure that it replaces the TLM; if people want to do that, I guess that's their business, but at the end of the day, I'm not getting involved in that business, because it will always leave people profoundly unhappy. Taking away the TLM, where most of these decisions are made for you, adding an element of pleasantness on top of the textual and ceremonial considerations which make the rite attractive in itself, is cruel, and I will never let these people forget that the TLM is what I and many others want.
  • Chas,

    The Church has some limited power to alter Her rites.

    I'm increasingly puzzled by those who say, effectively, at one and the same time that there's no difference between the TLM and the Ordo of Paul VI, and that it is absolutely wrong to choose the TLM because it amounts to a repudiation of the Ordo of Paul VI.

    The Ordo of Paul VI, in Latin, isn't a concession: it's normative.
  • The Church as some limited power to alter Her rites.

    I continue to not understand this position. Whether you agree or not, clearly the Church does have the power to alter whatever it wants in the liturgy. At the end of the day, Tradition is not an automatic end to the discussion, as it has to be interpreted just like Scripture does, and the final authority for such rests with the Magisterium rather than angry trads in the States.

    The overblown hysteria (people being "kicked out" of churches) is not helpful and further indicative of the attitudes which Pope Francis drew attention to.
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    clearly the Church does have the power to alter whatever it wants in the liturgy.
    Really? To what “magisterium” are you referring that owns such a power? Please be exhaustive and precise in your definition... I am curious to know.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Whether you agree or not, clearly the Church does have the power to alter whatever it wants in the liturgy.
    I might abandon my wife and take up a concubine, but that doesn’t mean I “have the power” to dissolve my marriage…

    Just because something has happened doesn’t mean that it is licit or just.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Maybe you should all refer yourselves to Can. 838 before assuming the Church cannot licitly regulate its own liturgy.

    I shouldn't have to explain this to Roman Catholics, though.
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins CharlesW
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,389
    So this Canon law you appeal to, it comes from the Apostles or Christ Himself right?

    'Regulate' is one thing writing new liturgies (that do not look like liturgy) is another. As Benedict tells us what was once held sacred must always be sacred...

    Also the saints have written books on Obedience... and this does not make the ordinary a dictator whose every whim has to be obeyed. His authority over us is strictly limited
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • clearly the Church does have the power to alter whatever it wants in the liturgy.
    Maybe you should all refer yourselves to Can. 838 before assuming the Church cannot licitly regulate its own liturgy.


    Even the Council Fathers at Vatican II insisted that there were parts of the liturgy which are NOT subject to change. I'm not proposing some hermetically sealed box, but neither can you (rightly, anyway) assert that absolutely anything can be changed.


    What I received also I handed on, as St. Paul says somewhere.

    If anyone preach a gospel other than ...... says St. Paul, too.

    I have kept the faith... says St.Paul, too.
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 181
    @Chris Garton-Zavesky

    I am not saying that it is wrong to choose TLM because it is automatically a repudiation of the Missal of St. Paul VI. If I were made pope tomorrow, I would reverse Traditionis Custodes. I think that the church should be large enough to welcome those who simply prefer worshipping according to the 1962 Missal and those who prefer the Missal of St. Paul VI. History shows us that variations on the Latin Rite can co-exist within the same church.

    The key word in the previous paragraph is "prefer." I believe a problem comes in when people deny the authority of the church to alter (within parameters) its own rites or declares the Missal of St. Paul VI is illegitimate.


    My overarching point is that while Traditionis Custodes sharply limits the ability to use the 1962 missal, there are no similar restrictions on the use of the Missal of St. Paul VI in Latin. Is it precisely the same? I recognize that it is not. But we can be obedient to the letter of the law by having celebrations of Latin NO masses with Gregorian propers and ordinaries. (And there is justification in the documents of the Second Vatican Council for doing exactly that.) That is the best work around we have in the circumstances that currently exist. So many have a choice: 1. Be disobedient to the commands (however misguided) of the ordinary and the Pope and insist on TLM; or 2. Be obedient to the law and have a Latin NO mass with Gregorian ordinary and propers.
  • there are no similar restrictions on the use of the Missal of St. Paul VI in Latin.
    excepting, of course, the fact that you can no longer order the missal of Paul VI in Latin… details.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    Mr Schönbergian--

    I was truly hoping for an exhaustive and precise definition of the Magisterium from your perspective...

    Are you then saying that canon law alone (and are you referring to the 1983 here?) IS the Magisterium?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    The overblown hysteria (people being "kicked out" of churches) is not helpful and further indicative of the attitudes which Pope Francis drew attention to.


    Normally, you'd get punched in the face if you said this to any other grieving person, but because it's about ecclesiastical politics, and people whom you don't especially like, this is OK. It's exactly what happened, however: they got kicked out of the churches, and some of these people in Arlington, to name one sad case, have donated thousands and thousands to renovating their churches under the assumption that the TLM would be offered in these buildings.

    There are a lot of things which I'd hope that I shouldn't have to explain to Catholics, but the hostility to the ancient form of the rite, an attitude condemned by the Council of Trent, the very same basis for which the Secretariat of State refused to abolish it at the request of Bugnini himself, is among them, yet this hatred underlies every single reason put forward. Nota bene: Cardinal Gregory and Bishop Burbidge both underlined the loyalty and piety of the people expelled from their churches, so it's clearly not about bad behavior, and these reactions are pretty much the same the world over (I've read dozens of these letters in the last year and some months). Francis hardly mentions it at all. It is purely about the liturgical rites for these bishops.

    Chaswjd, people shouldn't be allowed to prefer the new missal at all costs, particularly since that comes with the hatred condemned by the Fathers of Trent. Again, the obedience to the letter can come only if the Ordinary allows it. Most have not, or they make you go out of your way to prove your obedience. Insisting that your way forward is the only way, when it's as threatened or more than just carrying on, is very obnoxious, and to a fault.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw ServiamScores
  • TCJ
    Posts: 842
    Having a NO in Latin, ad orientem may be permitted freely in word, but in actuality there are these people known as bishops who often put restrictions. For instance, anything of that sort will not be happening in my diocese because the bishop will not permit it or else.
  • So this Canon law you appeal to, it comes from the Apostles or Christ Himself right?

    We're not Protestants, so I don't understand this line of reasoning.

    Normally, you'd get punched in the face if you said this to any other grieving person, but because it's about ecclesiastical politics, and people whom you don't especially like, this is OK. It's exactly what happened, however: they got kicked out of the churches, and some of these people in Arlington, to name one sad case, have donated thousands and thousands to renovating their churches under the assumption that the TLM would be offered in these buildings.

    Under instruction from the Supreme Pontiff, one form of the Roman Rite will no longer be offered at these parishes. Nobody is being kicked out, they are choosing to go elsewhere for a liturgy that they prefer.
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    Under instruction from the Supreme Pontiff
    Is THIS then, the magisterium?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Schoenbergian,

    Serious question, not snark: Do you agree with the Cardinal Abp of Chicago that he didn't ban the traditional form of the Mass and the Sacraments, but, rather, that the priests freely chose not to offer them?

    Chas,

    2. Be obedient to the law and have a Latin NO mass with Gregorian ordinary and propers.


    If the law-enforcer actually allowed such a thing....... you might have a stronger case. Cardinal Sarah argued reasonably and passionately that priests should celebrate Mass ad orientem, and the consequence was that some bishops and priests (including, nearly, the Holy Father himself) banned the practice. The law and common sense are on the Cardinal's side, but ... de jure and de facto sometimes don't exactly coincide.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw MatthewRoth
  • Is THIS then, the magisterium?
    Yes - see Cann. 331, 333, and 752-754.


    Serious question, not snark: Do you agree with the Cardinal Abp of Chicago that he didn't ban the traditional form of the Mass and the Sacraments, but, rather, that the priests freely chose not to offer them?

    On the face of it, I would not agree with that statement, but I'd appreciate if you would give me a source so that I can examine it more fully.
  • https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/archdiocese-of-chicago-claims-institute-of-christ-the-king-chose-to-stop-offering-sacraments/

    There is much in this report, some of it more germane to the question you ask than other parts of it.
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • MarkB
    Posts: 858
    My apologies if this is later posted above as a repeat. I tried it through a VPN hours ago and it got blocked/held for review; hasn't been posted yet. Seeing if this works.

    Less Kwasniewski and more "Where Peter Is": https://wherepeteris.com/trad-resistance-is-old-fashioned-dissent/

    Suddenly traditionalist and conservative Catholic figures are employing the same tactics as outspoken liberal dissenters from earlier generations. They make clear that their reconsideration of these questions is due to their disapproval of Pope Francis’s teachings. Holmes begins his article, “Pope Francis’ many controversial statements have brought with them a new interest in how Catholics should respond to non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium.” Eric Sammons begins the podcast with the words, “The controversy surrounding Pope Francis have led many Catholics to rethink the papacy itself.” The unfortunate and sad reality is that their obedience to the Magisterium of the Church is contingent on what they personally think about what the pope teaches. That’s neither submission nor respect.

    Yet unlike figures such as Curran – who had no problem admitting to dissenting views – they push back hard against the notion that they oppose the official teachings of the Church. Such intellectual dishonesty can’t possibly end well.
    Thanked by 1Schönbergian
  • This article may be even more relevant: https://wherepeteris.com/followers-of-the-imagisterium/

    Many of these Catholics seem to believe that there is an objective standard against which the teachings of the papal Magisterium and the official Church must be weighed. Whether it’s questioning the doctrinal soundness of parts of Amoris Laetitia or the orthodoxy of the change to the Catechism’s official teaching on the death penalty, they seem to think they have an obligation to review and (if necessary) critique official Church teachings against this standard.
    (...)
    Catholics who adhere to the imagisterium claim they are weighing novel teachings from the Vatican against Church Tradition or the “perennial magisterium,” or that they are attempting to reconcile the official teaching with “doctrinal orthodoxy.” Among the adherents to the imagisterial approach are journalists, canon lawyers, prominent theologians, priests, bishops, and at least one cardinal. The problem with this is that it has absolutely no basis in what the Church teaches about the Magisterium, and threatens to divide the Church.
    (...)
    Some theologians openly advocate dissent on the grounds that, “assent must be withheld when the teaching in question openly conflicts with the public dogma or definitive doctrine of the Church.” During this papacy, this concept has been applied to both Amoris Laetitia and the death penalty. On the surface, it seems reasonable. After all, it can certainly be jarring for one’s airtight understanding of a particular doctrine to be blown apart by a new magisterial development. A problem with this assertion is that it doesn’t have a basis in Catholic doctrine. Another problem is that it holds an individual’s subjective judgement over authoritative Church teaching. What many of these Catholic critics hold to be an objective, authoritative standard is simply a product of their imaginations.
  • Mark, Schoenbergian,

    Are you responding to the link I posted?

  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,389
    Errr... How can the Church be divided we have communities that believe in the real presence and we have non Catholic communities that do not. We can find plenty of other teachings that are not held by people hiding in buildings that have signs proclaiming they are Catholics. How can they be Catholic if they do not believe what is necessary to be Catholic?

    We in the western world suffer from a heresy that we think are better those those that came before us, we are supposedly more kind and wise. This is mistaken, we can only see further because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

    So when someone who claims to be a member of the Church says that the Church was wrong for 500 or even 1,500 years we can be certain they are wrong. If the Church was wrong for most of it's history we have no guarantee it can ever be right. If on the other hand we are members of the One True Church, it can't be wrong. Those that believe that what the Church has taught definitively was wrong put themselves out side the Church.

    If the new Liturgy is an improvement we will see this in it's fruits, If it is barren the bible tells us repeatedly what will happen.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 181
    Interestingly, in the regulations set forth by Cardinal Cupich, he states:

    "[Accompaniment] may also mean creatively including elements that people have found nourishing in celebrating the pre-Vatican form of the Mass, which has always been an option in the Mass reformed by the Council, e.g., reverent movement and gestures, use of Gregorian chant, Latin and incense, as well as extended periods of silence within the liturgy."

    While I disagree with his attempt to regulate the ad orientem posture, it seems like a Latin Novus Order is not being regulated in Chicago.

    https://www.chicagocatholic.com/chicagoland/-/article/2022/01/05/archdiocese-sets-policy-for-implementing-traditionis-custodes-
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,715
    We obey the pope, until he does something we don't like. Then we question his authority. Catholics have really boxed themselves in on the authority of the pope. Could we say we might have been better off if there had been no Vatican I. That's "one" not "two."
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 858
    The ICKSP in Chicago has the right to celebrate Mass using the 1962 Missal according to its constitution. It does not have the right to offer such Masses publicly without the local ordinary's permission.

    As I understand things, Cardinal Cupich made it a condition for offering public Masses in the Archdiocese of Chicago that the ICKSP celebrate such public Masses using the Novus Ordo Missae at least some of the time, adhering to the liturgical norms he issued that are applicable everywhere in the Archdiocese. Specifically, those communities that celebrate Mass publicly using the 1962 Missal must, on the first Sunday of every month and on principal solemnities, celebrate Mass using only the Novus Ordo.

    The ICKSP refused, as is its right; as a consequence, it chose to no longer offer public Masses. Cardinal Cupich did not shut them down. He said the conditions under which public Masses could be offered would be no different from anywhere else in the Archdiocese for which he is the ordinary and chief liturgist.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    We obey the pope, until he does something we don't like. Then we question his authority.
    WRONG!

    We obey the pope until he rejects and reverses Catholic tradition and Dogma. Then we employ the Aquinas/Bellarmine rule. We NEVER question his authority... only the bishops can do that.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw trowland87
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,715
    But that is exactly what you are doing. You have no authority to define Catholic tradiion and Dogma - that is if you follow the rules of your own church.

    The celebration of a particular rite of liturgy is not dogma.
    Thanked by 1Schönbergian
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    The celebration of a particular rite of liturgy is not dogma.

    Firstly, I have no authority to define anything. The Church has already done this. I support what Holy Mother Church has already given to us, what SHE has already defined. (Are you familiar with the Aquinas/Bellarmarine option which the Church itself has defined and upholds? The church tells us how to discern those who come forward as shepherds in wolf’s attire, and Jesus warned us in the Gospels that it would be coming to us.)

    Otherwise, off the top of my head I will offer this... if you really were serious, I could dig in and unravel irrefutable arguments... but here is not the place.

    I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith in her liturgy...”
    ...Pius XII Devant L’Histoire

    “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catho- lic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sac- raments may be despised, or may be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or may be changed into other new rites by any church pastor whomsoever, let him be anathema.”
    ...Council of Trent, Sess. VII, Can. XIII
    Pope Paul III, 3 March 1547 (D.S. 1613)

    “... ‘recalling it (the liturgy) to greater simplicity of rites, by ex- pressing it in the vernacular language or by uttering it in a loud voice’ as if the present order of the liturgy received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated ... (is) rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favourable to the charges of here- tics”.
    ...Auctorem Fidei [33]
    Pope Pius VI, 28 August 1794 (D.S. 2633)


    We need to obey ALL of our ordinaries... not just the ones from our recent past. Dogma does not get redefined... it only gets reconfirmed, crystallized and made clearer... otherwise, be careful about which slope you may be sliding down upon (into the jaws of ravening wolves).
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores tomjaw
  • Firstly, I have no authority to define anything. The Church has already done this.
    Yes, in the segments of Canon Law which you have not acknowledged.

    Or are we going so far as to claim that Canon Law is faulty here?
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • The ICKSP refused, as is its right; as a consequence, it chose to no longer offer public Masses. Cardinal Cupich did not shut them down.

    The ICKSP did not "choose" to no longer offer public masses - they were forced to do so by the Cardinal, since to do otherwise was to go against the constitutions of their order (which was approved by the Church).

    If a bishop orders an enclosed order of nuns to go out and teach, and they refuse, resulting in the bishop asking them to leave the diocese, the order has not "chosen" to leave - they were forced to do so by the bishop. In this case it is accurate to say they were "shut down" by the bishop (even though it was done indirectly).
  • “You may jump into this pit of scorpions, or you may jump off this cliff. The choice is yours.”

    *the next day*

    “They chose to jump off the cliff! They were given options!”
  • Speaking of canon law, canons 578 and 586 make it clear that a bishop is bound to preserve "the whole patrimony of an institute . . . This patrimony is comprised of the intentions of the founders, of all that the competent ecclesiastical authority has approved concerning the nature, purpose, spirit and character of the institute, and of its sound traditions." And "each institute has its own discipline in the Church and can preserve whole and entire [its] patrimony . . . Local Ordinaries have the responsibility of preserving and safeguarding this autonomy."

    So if Cardinal Cupich wants simply to remove the ICKSP from the archdiocese, that's his prerogative, though it's generally understood that he needs a just reason. But to ask them to go against the "patrimony of the institute" which was founded to celebrate the older form of the Mass and sacraments, is, on the face of it at least, a violation of the above canons. He's simply shutting them down by other means.
  • Claiming that Cupich didn't directly and intentionally shut down the ICKSP but rather that they chose this fate is gaslighting of the highest order. Come on now.
  • Speaking of canon law, canons 578 and 586 make it clear that a bishop is bound to preserve "the whole patrimony of an institute . . . This patrimony is comprised of the intentions of the founders, of all that the competent ecclesiastical authority has approved concerning the nature, purpose, spirit and character of the institute, and of its sound traditions." And "each institute has its own discipline in the Church and can preserve whole and entire [its] patrimony . . . Local Ordinaries have the responsibility of preserving and safeguarding this autonomy."

    Which is why I wouldn't agree with Cupich's decision in this case.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    WPI is run by a mendacious liar who has apparently gotten over his shock that people more inclined to his views are not all that serious about abortion and are in fact rather in favor of the previous precedent. He also refuses to dissociate himself from them and interacts favorably, even when these people have said that they no longer contribute to WPI and that their views have jeopardized communion with the church, all while condemning trads and appointing himself an arbiter of orthodoxy.

    You might not like Peter K or agree with him, but that doesn't mean running off to WPI.

    and Mark, insisting that Cupich didn't shut down the shrine down (or at least put it into limbo) happens to be factually incorrect, but even if it weren't, had Cupich not issued his ultimatum, then the canons wouldn't have acted that way.

    The celebration of a particular rite of liturgy is not dogma.
    Charles, aren't you canonically Byzantine? I don't think that Byzantine Catholics would allow the pope to interfere, so it's a bit rich to hear this from you.

    rich_enough, removing a society of apostolic life of pontifical right from the archdiocese is actually complicated; granted, Cupich would have it easy in the current climate, but he can't just yeet the community.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • WPI is run by a mendacious liar who has apparently gotten over his shock that people more inclined to his views are not all that serious about abortion and are in fact rather in favor of the previous precedent. He also refuses to dissociate himself from them and interacts favorably, even when these people have said that they no longer contribute to WPI and that their views have jeopardized communion with the church, all while condemning trads and appointing himself an arbiter of orthodoxy.

    You might not like Peter K or agree with him, but that doesn't mean running off to WPI.

    Ad hominem fallacy. Address what is brought up instead of making unrelated personal attacks on the author. I don't know or care if Mike Lewis is who you say he is, and it has no bearing on whether what he says here is correct or not.