Pitsburgh Diocese Missinterprets Motu Proprio - Page 2

JW10631 · #16 Jul 14, '07, 6:29 pm

I read an edited version of the Diocese of Pittsburgh's statement about the motu proprio in our parish bulletin this evening. There was nothing new.

I happen to know that our parish administrator - he is not officially the pastor because we do not have an ordinary - knows some Latin, enjoys the hymns in Latin our choir sings on Saturday evenings....and just might be disposed to celebrating the TLM. We have a small parish. Saturdays are when a larger number of elderly people attend Mass - certainly many of them remember the TLM.

I'll think about asking in the next couple of months. Short of that, perhaps we could have some more Latin hymns and Mass propers, and I would be thrilled with that.

jmj603 · #17 Jul 14, '07, 6:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercygate

Calm down and read the bishop's letter again. He is not restricting future celebrations of the TLM to his indult parish. This is Pittsburgh, for Pete's sake! It's not Los Angeles.

I hope you're right. But I think it's rather more likely that your diocesan Administrator's staff does not favor the TLM. Perhaps they have agendas of their own?

Flood your Administrator with phone calls and pray for him. Feel free to appeal immediately to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, because a juridical act seems to have occurred. Also, feel free to contact the Apostolic Nuncio. If I were a traditional-minded Catholic in Pittsburgh, I would treat this as THE most important week of the year, activism wise. This is as bad as Trautman's move, IMHO.

jmj603 · #18 Jul 14, '07, 7:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by kleary

Until the effective date of the Motu Proprio and until there is further direction from the diocese, there may not be any change in the present practice regarding the Roman Missal of Pope Blessed John XXIII.

These two bureaucrats (Frs. DiNardo and Yuhas) have effectively ordered that the Motu Proprio not be implemented in Pittsburgh. What a scandal!

Kielbasi · #19 Jul 14, '07, 7:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmj603

These two bureaucrats (Frs. DiNardo and Yuhas) have effectively ordered that the Motu Proprio not be implemented in Pittsburgh. What a scandal!

I don't know how much of a "scandal" it is. I don't think that any administrator is going to go that much out on a limb during this period of sede vacante in Pittsburgh.

I think the whole matter will be sorted out after 9/14 and after we have a bishop in Pittsburgh.

jmj603 · #20 Jul 14, '07, 7:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kielbasi

I don't know how much of a "scandal" it is. I don't think that any administrator is going to go that much out on a limb during this period of sede vacante in Pittsburgh.

I think the whole matter will be sorted out after 9/14 and after we have a bishop in Pittsburgh.

The Administrator's staff has gone very far out on a limb already. If this indefinite delay is allowed to continue, it will be contagious and a global scandal.

jmj603 · #21 Jul 14, '07, 7:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmj603

The Administrator's staff has gone very far out on a limb already. If this indefinite delay is allowed to continue, it will be contagious and a global scandal.

After reading more, it seems that the pastor at the Indult parish is one of the authors of the letter. Hopefully then this is just a misunderstanding, but I think it would have to be a misunderstanding on his part as to what the words he was writing actually meant, rather than what he meant when he wrote them. The letter needs to be clarified.

frommi · #22 Jul 15, '07, 4:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicago

I have to wonder how much of a mess this all is going to create for Ecclesia Dei (and what kind of bureaucratical backlog which slows them to a standstill) this all is going to create when people start appealing to them directly.

Not to mention that canonically the bishops do not 'report' to Eccelsia Dei.

otjm · #23 Jul 23, '07, 10:43 pm

The whole issue does point up one thing, and that is, what is the definition of "where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition"?

Adhere would seem to imply that there is more than just an occasional desire to experience the Mass of 1962. There wilol be those who want to go to the 1962 Mass, but not on anything of a regular basis - does that mean they "adhere" to it?

Stable - certainly implies that the group has been fairly constant; not running hot one time and cold another. Group - does that imply anything, particularly as it comes to Sundy Mass?

One poster talked of a parish with over 3000 members; 6 Masses, which would seem to imply that the minimu would be around 300 attending one Mass; are 50 people in the parish going to constitute enough members that a Mass for 300 would be vacated and replaced with 50 who will come all of the time, and who knows how many part of the time?

In some places, no doubt, they will be able to raise 300 with less than a 3000 memeber parish. But what of those who can't? The MP lacks definition, for sure.

AlexV · #24 Jul 24, '07, 4:24 am

Some people are really obsessed with numbers when it comes to the extraordinary liturgy.

The Motu makes no mention of numbers (despite pre-issue rumors that it would).

rtconstant · #25 Jul 24, '07, 8:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexV

Some people are really obsessed with numbers when it comes to the extraordinary liturgy.

The Motu makes no mention of numbers (despite pre-issue rumors that it would).

That's true nor should it as every parish is different. Twenty consistant people could be reasonable for one parish but impractical for another. Also it isn't that numbers is the only consideration in some cases it may not be a consideration at all. The Pope I think recognized that these sorts of decisions are best left up to the local pastor.

Numbers are just the focal point because odds are probably good that this will be at least part of the decision in many parishes. That is why I've said since the MP came out that those who want an EF within a diocese should meet up and strategize how to approach it. If 15 people (random number) from a parish approach their priest who is doing 6 masses with at least 300 people per and ask for a 7th just for them, they may be told no. However, if 150 people from several local parishes approach the pastor of a central location and ask you he's more likely to consider it.

Getting a Mass together takes work, the pastor has to alocate time into a busy schedule, choirs and servers must be organized and trained. So it only goes to reason that you want to make it worth the effort for the pastor and others that are invovled. Remember your essentially asking someone to do something for you so try to be as considerate as possible.

I'm not trying to tell people how to do things I just think that local EF soceities organized to help present well thought out plans and support for the EF just make sense.

Anyway, you are right Alex it isn't just about numbers but they can certainly help you.

otjm · #26 Jul 24, '07, 10:03 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexV

Some people are really obsessed with numbers when it comes to the extraordinary liturgy.

The Motu makes no mention of numbers (despite pre-issue rumors that it would).

You are correct that the MP makes no mention of numbers; and as to obsession, not only am I not obsessed with numbers, but that is a slipshod way of responding to the questions I asked. Try actually giving an answer - how do you think these issues will be resolved?

It seems to me that it can go one of two directions: either on a parish by parish basis, or through some sort of consolidation.

Given the fact that there has been a feeling, obviously not unjustified, that the Mass of 1962 has either been denied or has been minimized by how opportunities for it have been given, I would expect in some areas that the issue will be quite contentious. Because of the costs and logistics of getting a Mass set up, realisticly it will take some time; finding a priest who can or is willing to learn how to say the Mass may be ddifficult, and not all may be willing to do so; and there is already one thread at least dicussing what to do if bishops deny further expansion - which they may appear to do even if they are trying to find a balance and doing so legitimately.

So rather than simply dismissing the issue as an obsession with numbers, how do you see this being resolved?

Andreas Hofer · #27 Jul 24, '07, 10:23 am

Forgive me if someone has already pointed this out, but the priests who issued that statement did so during an interregnum in their diocese, and things might be much better once the new bishop (Bp. Zubik) gets settled in and has time to make himself heard.

Brendan · #28 Jul 24, '07, 12:12 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by frommi

Not to mention that canonically the bishops do not 'report' to Eccelsia Dei.

Under Canon Law, the bishops ' report' to whoever the Pontiff directs the to do.

So re:the use of the 1962 Missal, the Holy Father has delegated his Authority to regulate this psrticular liturgy to the Eccesia Dei Commission .

AlexV · #29 Jul 24, '07, 12:19 pm

Well said. The Pontifical Commission is the Holy See's official agency for dealing with the problem areas of this issue.

As for all the alleged problems and contentiousness...it's funny, isn't it?

Bishop Bruskewitz has no problem with this...and with making it work. Archbishop Burke...Bishop Finn...Bishop DeMarzio...Bishop Galante...Archbishop Chaput...the list goes on. Some prelates seem to have no problems whatsoever with making this work.

Others...and the list is longer, admittedly...have one problem after another. "Nobody knows Latin...nobody can be spared...nobody still has an altar rail (?!--as if that's "required")...nobody has the books (yes, I've heard that, from a bishop)...whine whine whine.

But the fact that quite a few places manage this very easily, and HAVE managed it for years...proves it's quite possible. If, of course, you really want to see it happen.

Sure · #30 Jul 24, '07, 1:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexV

Well said. The Pontifical Commission is the Holy See's official agency for dealing with the problem areas of this issue.

As for all the alleged problems and contentiousness...it's funny, isn't it?

Bishop Bruskewitz has no problem with this...and with making it work. Archbishop Burke...Bishop Finn...Bishop DeMarzio...Bishop Galante...Archbishop Chaput...the list goes on. Some prelates seem to have no problems whatsoever with making this work.

Others...and the list is longer, admittedly...have one problem after another. "Nobody knows Latin...nobody can be spared...nobody still has an altar rail (?!--as if that's "required")...nobody has the books (yes, I've heard that, from a bishop)...whine whine whine.

But the fact that quite a few places manage this very easily, and HAVE managed it for years...proves it's quite possible. If, of course, you really want to see it happen.

It seems from what I have read on various sites and blogs that there are more bishop's supporting this than making excuses. Which bishops have issued documents that really go against SP?