Italian bishop forbids Latin Mass despite motu proprio

Besides, it is not the case of, “The Pope says celebrate the extraordinary rite” and, “the bishop says don’t celebrate the extraordinary rite.” The case is: “The Pope gives permission to celebrate the extraordinary rite,” and, “the bishop prohibits its celebration.”

In this case, the priest cannot possibly be disobedient by not celebrating it, because he is not under obedience to celebrate it.

I agree with ASimpleSinner-- obedience is a virtue, and even the greatest saints-- St. John of the Cross, for one-- had to undergo much adversity in order to do the will of God. Going through the proper channels shows a real respect for the Church structure-- and that is a good thing. The bishop is still the ordinary, and the priest would owe obedience to him. Of course, the bishop has overstepped his bounds here, but that is why the Pope allowed appeal to Ecclesia Dei-- so that these problems could be resolved without anarchy, but in their due process.


And let us not forget that this priest was not obedient ot the Motu Proprio as the MP calls for the bishop to be notified and the priest neglected to do this.

So this is not a case of the priest being obedient to the bishop and the bishop not being obedient to the pope. Actually the bishop is being obedient to what is written in the MP.

This seem to be another case of selective reporting.

That is a sad statement; it is the equivalent of saying that you would not obey your bishop if he were sinful. Christ did not promise that the Church, or the Pope, or any given bishop would be impeccible - that is, sinless - only that the Church would be protected in matters of faith and morals. While I in no way condone a bishop for an outright violation of the MP, that is hardly reason to say that one would not obey him in other matters.

I have read the MP a number of times. I believe that if your read it, you will agree that is not entirely a correct statement.

The MP allows a private Mass to be said without permission. This was not a private Mass; it was a public one.

Article 5, Section 1: In parishes where there is a stable group… the pastore should wilolingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass…under the guidance of the bishop according to Canon 392…

That sure sounds like the bishop has some say in the matter.

Whether or not he has this much say is something that we may not have enough information about; either from the MP, which doesn’t say a lot, or from the article in the paper, which may or may not be slanted.

So I would disagree with you that the whole purpose of the MP is to provide with no oversight by the bishop at all.

Um, no, I don’t think so. “under the guidance of the bishop” (Article 5 Section 1) seems to imply otherwise. Contrary to many popular opinions and expressions, it does not appear that public Mass according to the EF is without any input by the bishop at all.

It is correct that any priest may say the Mass privately, but that is not the issue here, as this was a public Mass.

Whether or not the bishop can go as far as he did may be a legitimate question, but “under the guidance of the bishop” in not a meaningless phrase.

I found the original article translated on a couple of sites. Here is the first part of the article and a quote from the Bishop:

Caserta bishop prohibits traditional Mass -
Parish priest obeys but says he disagrees
By Angelo Agrippa
Corriere del Mezzogiorno

NAPLES - He is known as the bishop of tolerance. Of immigrants. Of deprived persons. He has opened diocesan structures for Muslims to say their Friday prayers, and Ukrainian/Moldavian Orthodox to use for their worship.

But now he has prohibited the celebration of the 1962 Mass restored as of September 14 by Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

With a telephone call, Mons. Raffaele Nogaro ordered the rector of the Shrine of Sant’Anna in Caserta, Don Giovanni Battista Gionti, to stop the Mass he was planning to celebrate at 8 p.m. today.

“This case has nothing to do with tolerance,” Nogaro said later.

"The Mass in Latin is a distortion of religious fact. Not even university professors who teach Latin pray in Latin. It is not an appropriate instrument for establishing a true relationship with God. To help people to pray is an honorable effort. That is what I try to do in allowing the Tent of Abraham to be used by Muslims and the chapel next to the Cathedral, to be used by the Orthodox.

But to assail the faithful with sacred images, theatrical choreography and esthetic embellishments does the opposite. The faithful should be offered something valid and educational, not an occasion for disorientation. In short, murmuring prayers in Latin is good for nothing.

All I can say—:eek:

Let the Ecclesis Dei Commision take care of this issue. As a supporter of the Catholic Church and lover of the Traditional Latin Mass I am just going to pray for those who oppose the spread of the TLM and the Summorum Pontificum.

To God be the glory forever!

Not taking a shot at you Caesar, but using your comment as a place to say something I have learned over the years working in business hierarchies. Your immediate boss is the guy you need to obey because he controls all your rewards and punishments. Unless he asks you to do something absolutely immoral, it is smart to obey. The guy higher up will support his subordinate and will not usually come to your rescue unless it could bring on a lawsuit if he doesn’t. Maybe not very good, but that’s how the system usually works.

This absurdity should be denounced by all Catholics and the faithful who treasure the OF should distance themselves from this.

Me, too!!!:crying: My conversion into the RCC had as its catalyst the terrible things going on in the Episcopal church and now I fear the RCC (especially in the US, and probably Europe) is headed the same way:eek:

The church has stood for 2000 years, and Christ himself said it that hell itself will not prevail against it. So fear not…

This I thought too many times, I still expect one day the Liberal American Bishops might just do that one day and declare themselves the second Henry or Luther. Of course that speculation and for another topic. :slight_smile:

Would the rather sarcastic Bishop Nogaro quote concerning “mumbling in Latin…” be considered denigrating towards the Bishop of Rome?

I would think so.

Well, I have been sat down by my comment in stating that If my Bishop chose to disobey the Bishop of Rome I would have a hard time in obeying anything he stated. That does not mean I would obey him in all teachings that are in line with teachings of Holy Mother Church. If any bishop decides to disobey the Holy Father in any teaching then that bishop should be immediately sanctioned by the Holy See, no ifs, ands or buts about it. I am so disturbed by the comments of this LIBERAL bishop:eek: , the same bishop who allows Muslims to pray on Fridays on Holy Church ground. This bishop is embracing everything that is against The Church and Christianity and he should be sanctioned:mad: . We should all pray for his full conversion back to The Church. If I were to go to the Cathedral in my diocese and found a tent setup for Muslims I would be completely outraged, If the Msgr at the Cathedral was overwhelmed with requests from his parishioners to celebrate the TLM and our Bishop jumped and stated he was forbidding it then I would have a real problem. These bishops think they can usurp the authority of Holy Mother Church, the Pope etc and I am really fed up with it. I will continue to stay loyal the Church of Rome, the Holy See and Bishop of Rome in all teachings. If a bishop teaches against or goes against any of that then that bishop is a HERETIC:highprayer: and that is all there is to it.

:knight1: KOFC 3rd Degree

Did you read the MP? Point me to that section please.

Umm, no. This does not in any way suggest that the bishop needs to be asked for permission. READ:

Art. 5. õ 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

What this does say is that parish priests should take pastoral care of the requesting parishioners under the guidance of the bishop. It would be more accurate to say, “If the faithful request the EF, the parish priest must provide it and the bishop must see to it that they are given it. If that priest cannot offer the EF, then the bishop should find someone who can.” That is PRECISELY what this section is addressing, and it is reinforced in Article 7!:

Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 õ 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

Again, there is no reasonable way to conclude that “under the guidance of the bishop” calls for him to be asked to give permission. Instead, it highlights his role in guaranteeing the rights of the faithful to be given the EF when they request it.

I urge everyone here to read this whole document and discover the truth, rather than accept these twisted, agenda-ridden interpretations.

Well this really has nothing to do with that, there are still disobedient priests, bishops etc… Look at what the USCCB has recently. Check out catholic cavemans blog. These guys are become more and more Socially Liberal in their actions appointing pro-abortion people etc…
US Catholics are the most disloyal Catholics around, they think they can just decide on their own what doctrines, teachings etc… too believe. If you do not believe and abide by all teachings of the faith then I am sorry you are not a Catholic you need to pray:gopray2: and repent. These bishops are acting the same way they act like they are the final authority the next thing you know there will be 2 Catholic Churches in this country the American Catholic Church (Heretics) and the Roman Catholic church loyal to the Holy See and the Bishop of Rome:D

Here is Canon 392, as referenced by the MP. I highlighted what I gathered to be the intent of Canon 392:

Can. 392 §1 Since the Bishop must defend the unity of the universal Church, he is bound to foster the discipline which is common to the whole Church, and so press for the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.

§2 He is to ensure that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline, especially concerning the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the cult of the saints, and the administration of goods.

I don’t see how this translates to a mandate to inform the bishop. If anything, Canon 392 would seem to require the bishop to support the EF since the MP is ecclesiastical law. :rolleyes:

Just from reading that story I’d want more information before blasting the poor Bishop. Some questions come to mind:

Was this going to be a private mass?
Was this Latin mass going to replace an existing scheduled ordinary mass?
Was the mass being said at a time and place that would have made it seem more like the ordinary form of the mass than extraordinary? For example, the 9am sunday mass at the diocese cathedral?

I’d want more information before calling a bishops a heretic.

P.S. I’m interested in the traditional mass because I keep hearing from older catholics how back in the good old days catholics were so orthodox and loyal to the church hierarchy, whereas today so many catholics pick and choose what they want to accept. I have to say, I don’t see that kind of loyalty in threads like this, and I for one am scandalized by it. :frowning:

But, that’s just me! :shrug:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit