Leave a comment<\/a><\/p>\nJD:<\/p>\n
It is not a surprise to me that the bishop intervened in this situation, as it seems to have taken on a life of its own on social media. But I am surprised by the announcement that the Masses do not fulfill the Sunday obligation. From my point of view, that comes as a surprise in two ways:<\/p>\n
That this is not a decree.<\/p>\n
How unusual it is to say that assisting at a validly celebrated Mass on a Sunday does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.<\/p>\n
Your thoughts?<\/p>\n
Ed:<\/p>\n
Well, I don\u2019t think anyone would call me a maximalist for episcopal authority on this sort of thing. But my knee jerk reaction is that we might have a failure of process here, rather than of authority on the Sunday obligation aspect. Because to be clear: an unsigned press statement just asserting that these Masses don\u2019t qualify isn\u2019t anything like a legal argument or an exercise of episcopal authority.<\/p>\n
But let\u2019s get there in a second.<\/p>\n
First things first, from the statement, it sounds like we are dealing with a \u201cchapel\u201d that isn\u2019t one, in as much as it hasn\u2019t been erected canonically and isn\u2019t recognized by the diocese. In that (non) chapel, we\u2019ve got a TLM being celebrated illicitly, as I understand it \u2014 it isn\u2019t being done by a designated priest in a designated sacred space under the authority of the bishop and in accord with the norms of TC.<\/p>\n
Are we of one mind there?<\/p>\n
Yes.<\/p>\n
So, the Sunday obligation is two things, legally speaking, right? We have the Divine law mandate to keep holy the Sabbath, and then we have how the Church has codified the satisfaction of the Divine law, which is that you have to go to Mass on Sunday.<\/p>\n
But the going to Mass part is a merely ecclesiastical obligation, defined by the Church. Diocesan bishops can dispense from it \u2014 I mean your pastor can dispense you from it if you ask him. And diocesan bishops have the generally conceded authority to dispense from universal law as they see the need.<\/p>\n
So, by extension, would you say he has the legal power to define an illicit TLM as falling outside what is needed to satisfy the ecclesiastical obligation?<\/p>\n
That doesn\u2019t really follow to me.<\/p>\n
In the early centuries of the Church, Christians went to Mass on Sundays from a sense of devotion, and the normative community expectation, but they also worked on Sunday and otherwise lived their normal lives, because the world didn\u2019t shut down on Sunday, and they didn\u2019t live in even a nominally Christian culture.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m sure both a liturgist and a patristics guy will get mad at my startling gap in knowledge here, but I\u2019m honestly not actually sure how much they correlated Sunday worship to the third commandment before St. Augustine. I\u2019d love to read more history about that (maybe readers will give me suggestions in the comments).<\/p>\n
Bear in mind that early Christians called Sunday the \u201ceighth day,\u201d because the Resurrection inaugurated a new order of things.<\/p>\n
In any case, it wasn\u2019t until the 4th or 5th century that bishops began to say consistently that missing Mass on a Sunday was a sin. But it was regarded in those terms \u2014 as a moral issue \u2014 before it was regarded as a matter of ecclesiastical law. So while we as canonists think of it as having the character of positive law, we should consider that it had a moral basis in Christian thought before a juridical one.<\/p>\n
Why is that important? Because while it is true that the bishop can dispense from the Sunday obligation, it also has this primordial significance for Catholics, and I think the Church is \u2014 for that reason \u2014 usually reluctant to say that assisting at a valid celebration of the Eucharist does not fulfill the Sunday obligation. I can\u2019t think of a time when the Church has said that about the SSPX, for example.<\/p>\n
But the question can be looked at juridically, and should be.<\/p>\n
Canon 1248 \u00a71 says that: \u201cA person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.\u201d<\/p>\n
This implies that in the judgment of this bishop, the celebration of this particular TLM is not being celebrated according to \u201ca Catholic rite.\u201d<\/p>\n
Though I think it\u2019s a bit of a stretch reading of the canon, I suppose I would have presumed that central to the bishop\u2019s judgment would be that the priest does not have the intention to offer the Mass in the communion of the Church. But I am told by a source close to the event that the priest is from an actual religious institute of pontifical rite \u2014 not from any kind of schismatic group \u2014 and thus, I\u2019m not sure what would lead to that judgment.<\/p>\n
So, just to pick up your first point about early Christian practice and the Sabbath, I\u2019d be surprised if early centuries Christians wouldn\u2019t be baffled by a lot of the differences between their Eucharistic liturgies and ours, TLM and ordinary form. But I would note that the Catechism draws a pretty explicit link between the third commandment and the Sunday obligation:<\/p>\n
\u201cSunday is expressly distinguished from the Sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the Sabbath. In Christ\u2019s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish Sabbath and announces man\u2019s eternal rest in God.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship as a sign of his universal beneficence to all. Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.\u201d<\/p>\n
I had this in my mind because I remember in the pandemic days we actually had a conversation about some bishops having issued general dispensations from the Sunday obligation which framed it as a dispensation from the third commandment, which obviously no bishop can do because it\u2019s divine law, as opposed to dispensing or commuting the merely ecclesiastical Sunday obligation to go to Mass.<\/p>\n
Anyway, I think you\u2019re exactly right about the substance of the legal question here. We\u2019re looking at 1248 \u00a71. And I think the real question is: Is an illicit TLM a \u201cCatholic rite,\u201d strictly speaking?<\/p>\n
There really isn\u2019t any question, I think, for anyone going to such a thing, who would assume it is \u2014 including the celebrant. But I think the question gets more interesting if we phrase it as \u201cCould the bishop declare it not to be, anyway?\u201d<\/p>\n
Here I am less sure of my own assumptions. We are, after all, still living in the world of Traditionis custodes and, badly written though it may be, it is still the law. And it does state that \u201cthe liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.\u201d<\/p>\n
Is it possible for a bishop to rule that an illicit TLM on private property outside of the norms of TC does not fall within this definition of the Roman Rite? I\u2019m not saying I\u2019d find it terribly sympathetic, but if he properly argued it and issued such a ruling in a comprehensible legal form, I think it would at least need to be judged by Rome.<\/p>\n
The situation is a little muddier for me if the priest celebrant is a religious, himself properly authorized for use of the Extraordinary Form. That being the case, I think I\u2019d err on the side of my instincts and say it\u2019s definitely and demonstrably a valid expression of what we can call the Roman Rite.<\/p>\n
But do you take my point about TC making the presumptions of 1248 less clear?<\/p>\n
First, let me say how much I\u2019m enjoying this. I hope we do more of them.<\/p>\n
Second, I\u2019m not sure I do take your point. TC does say that the current missal is the \u201cunique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.\u201d It does.<\/p>\n
But obviously, TC also allows for the usus antiquior to be offered. And also, it would be a terrifically bold statement \u2014 whatever your view on the current \u201ctrad question\u201d \u2014 to suggest that the Mass of our grandfathers can no longer be considered a \u201cCatholic rite.\u201d<\/p>\n
I mean, what the what?<\/p>\n
On the other hand, you make a good point. If the bishop doesn\u2019t think the intention of the priest is at issue, then the issue you raise is the next logical means by which he might conclude that this Mass doesn\u2019t fulfill the Sunday obligation.<\/p>\n
And I\u2019d be super interested to hear what Rome says.<\/p>\n
I\u2019d suggest the following: We should try to interview the bishop of Pittsburgh about this, if he\u2019ll give us the interview.<\/p>\n
And then we should wait to see whether the Dicastery for Divine Worship, or Legislative Texts, will give some clarification on this \u201cCatholic rite\u201d question. Because in one way or another, it is obviously becoming a central component of the implementation and understanding of TC. And there needs to be some standard approach to the question, lest we have (more?) liturgical inconsistency across dioceses.<\/p>\n
Well, I do just want to note that there are bishops of sound mind and doctrine who have, as a general principle, said that Masses of the SSPX don\u2019t satisfy the Sunday obligation for Catholics: Bishop Philip Egan of Portsmouth, for one. As you might imagine, the SSPX were deeply annoyed by that<\/a> since, as we know, they don\u2019t think illegal acts have any bearing on your standing in ecclesiastical law.<\/p>\nAs for it being a terrifically bold statement to declare the Mass of our grandparents to not be a legitimate expression of the Roman Rite, I\u2019d agree. But I\u2019m not making that statement, I\u2019m asking if TC does.<\/p>\n
The point I am trying to puzzle through is IF TC lays out a fairly narrow definition for legitimate expressions of the Roman rite, and IF Mass is being celebrated in a way that falls outside of that definition, does this suffice to make an argument about c.1248? I\u2019d not myself put my name to such an argument, but if a bishop did, I think it would raise serious enough questions that I couldn\u2019t wave the issue away and it would need to be answered by Rome.<\/p>\n
As for trying to interview Bishop Eckman, I am certainly game. And I would certainly be interested in any opinion on this which Rome might choose to express. As for waiting and seeing, though\u2026 if we wait for bishops to give us interviews and Rome to answer the mail, well, I don\u2019t think we\u2019ll have much else to publish for a few months at least.<\/p>\n
But you never know. Ours is a faith of miracles.<\/p>\n
Good point. Thanks for remembering about +Egan. And yeah, I agree that some question has to be raised to Rome about the interpretation of TC.<\/p>\n
I also think there is a procedural question, which I alluded to before. If this is the deliberative determination of the diocesan bishop, it should probably come in a different form than a statement from the diocese. I said decree earlier, but that wasn\u2019t quite right, because this is not an executory act, it is a judgment. Still, one would expect such a judgment to come in a more formal way, with the reasoning delineated and with the signature of the bishop. Otherwise, it\u2019s too easy to ask, as we have done, about the authority of the assertion altogether.<\/p>\n
I think the form would be an instruction, in accord with c. 34, clarifying \u201cthe methods to be observed\u201d in fulfilling the law within his diocese.<\/p>\n
For sure. If the intention here is to advise the people of Pittsburgh about a legal determination by the bishop, I would want to see something like a proper general decree, which is a kind of law, setting out this determination. I guess an instruction could work, but I would be iffy on a bishop issuing an instruction on a point of universal law which interprets it in a particular way \u2014 that seems like a fast track to the law meaning one thing in one place and something else entirely elsewhere.<\/p>\n
If he went for a general decree, perceptively phrased, I\u2019d just be a little more comfortable with the wider legal implications.<\/p>\n
Yeah. Several possible ways to address it. I would not have expected basically a \u201cstatement,\u201d though, which is not a legally recognized form of episcopal authority.<\/p>\n
Open questions, in other words. We should shoot for interviewing His Excellency.<\/p>\n
Good hang, amigo. I want to catch a Devils game, so I\u2019m gonna run.<\/p>\n
Enjoy the game. Please don\u2019t say \u201cgood hang.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Diocese of Pittsburgh released on Tuesday a statement to Catholics about an apparently illicit celebration of the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":301439,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[73,75,74],"class_list":["post-301438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-pittsburgh","tag-pittsburgh","tag-pittsburgh-headlines","tag-pittsburgh-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/301438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=301438"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/301438\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/301439"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=301438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=301438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=301438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!qD8y!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F48bfbf12-3145-48a1-88f2-502173296f42_1600x1064.png\")
<\/a>The Extraordinary Form of the Mass offered in Stasbourg Cathedral. Credit: Christophe117\/wikimedia CC BY SA 4.0<\/p>\n