www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News The Bishop of Calgary, Alberta, has just suspended Latin Mass

Alexis:

I've often likened the Catholic system to a feudal one. Each bishop operates in his own territory with only Rome to rein him in. And in this age when the idea of one's conscience being king and the idea of the dissident being some sort of folk hero--well, you get the picture. The idea that each bishop should regulate liturgical matters in his own territory has lead to the application that he just does what he feels like doing--winging it, flying by the seat of his pants.

I'm with you. It isn't right, but the long-suffering people in the pew just put up with it. No one can remove the guy except Rome and Rome doesn't want to rule with a heavy hand in this age of its seeking Church unity with other bodies that bristle over their perceptions of Roman authority. So even acting as the leader of his own patriarchate seems to be seomthing that doesn't happen. All I can say is that I'm thankful tonight that I am not in His Holiness' shoes. I suspect that if one bishop were made an example of, there would be open rebellion by others as a sort of "shooting back."

Me? I just shake the dust off my shoes. Too many years in the trenches crying out like John the Baptist--the voice crying in the wilderness. And the average person in the pews saying "what's the big deal?"

In Christ,
BOB

The Ukrainian canonist Fr. Victor Popshishil, once wrote that, according to the canons, the Pope is an absolute monarch--except when he chooses not to be. In reality (as opposed to canonically, canons seldom having much to do with reality), the Pope is a constitutional monarch, and the Catholic communion is a constitutional monarchy in which the power of the Pope is constrained by a hedge of customary practices and unwritten assumptions, which he can violate only in the most extreme situations. The Pope can, in theory (and occasionally in fact) depose any bishop in the Catholic Churches (all of them, not just the Latin Church), but to do so under ordinary circumstances would initiate a constitutional crisis (in the same way that the Queen of England can, in theory, depose her prime minister--but only by creating a crisis that would probably result in the destruction of the monarchy). So he doesn't do it, because he might win the battle, but he will lose the war.

In fact, the Pope pretty much governs by consensus, which, in any large institution, means he governs around the margins, while nothing major really changes--the exception being in the aftermath of a general council, which represents a radical step change and establishment of a new consensus (e.g., Vatican II). From the outside, where people look at Pastor Aeternus or hold a rather caricatured perspective of the Papacy, this makes the Pope look weak whenever a bishop or bishops refuses to fall into line. If the caricature were true, then the Pope would simply remove the offending bishops and replace them with more pliant ones, but in fact the Pope has to respect the opinions of all the bishops, and blatant attacks on the autonomy of one would be seen as a threat to the autonomy of all.

The Pope can gradually shape the Episcopal College through his power of appointment, which is one reason the mandatory retirement age was installed (more turnover); and by appointing younger bishops he can ensure that his legacy outlasts his papacy and influence the Church for generations. But this is like trying to turn an aircraft carrier using a teaspoon for a rudder.

In other ways, the Pope can also accrete power to himself, but it tends to be in an ad hoc manner, resulting from some failure of the Episcopacy to live up to its responsibilities. Thus, we see a whole range of minor administrative functions being reserved to Rome (e.g., the power to laicize priests, ratifying decrees of nullity, controlling the right of bishops to accept honorary degrees,etc.) which enfeebles and infantilizes the Episcopacy. It also overburdens the Curia, which can no longer give more important issues their full attention, resulting in a sclerotic Church on the verge of imploding due to its own centralization.

The answer, of course, is to devolve authority back to the bishops, but one can see why the Holy See would be loathe to do so, given that the bishops have consistently lived down to our admittedly low expectations. In effect, Rome is in a trap of its own making: it has constantly pulled the bishops' chestnuts out of the fire by removing authority from the bishops, which in turn encourages the bishops to act in an irresponsible manner, requiring Rome to pull their chestnuts out once again, resulting in less responsibility for the bishops, who become even more irresponsible.

Breaking the cycle would require the Pope to do something which is contrary to the instincts bred into the Church for close to a thousand years--he would have to say, at the next great scandal or crisis, "Boys, you're on your own. You made this mess, now you fix it--and don't come asking me to help, because I'm going fishing".

An assumption not upheld by history. In 1975 Her Majesty dismissed the Australian Prime Minister Goff Whitlam and she continued to reign triumphantly.

Not entirely the same thing as dismissing the PM of HM Government. And, technically, HMQ did not dismiss Whitlam, the Governor General did--and did so using the reserve powers under the Constitution of Australia. I also note that it created a constitutional crisis in Australia (as did the 1932 dismissal of government of New South Wales by the Governor General), but in both cases, elections were held almost immediately, and the dismissed government was massively defeated at the polls. In the UK proper, the monarch's reserve power to dismiss the government has not been exercised since 1834.

Your example, though accords well with my analogy of the Pope as constitutional monarch. Yes, in theory the Pope can dismiss any bishop, but in actuality, he can only do so when there is an overwhelming consensus within the Episcopal College against that bishop, just as the Governor General of Australia was only able to dismiss the government of Gough Whitlam because it had become increasingly unpopular, politically nonviable and incapable of governing (and yet was unwilling to step down and call new elections on its own).

In theory, the reserve power is unlimited: prime ministers serve at the discretion of the Crown, according to the written law. According to the unwritten customary law, the Crown can only dismiss the government if the government has lost an election or a vote of confidence--and in that case, the forms must be obeyed, and the defeated prime minister must go to the monarch and ask that the government be dismissed.

There may come a time when the government may do something so outrageous and unpopular that the monarch would actually have a mandate to dismiss the government absent a vote of no confidence (which would require the ruling party to ignore the will of its constituency), but that indeed would trigger a constitutional crisis which would result in a new interpretation of the customary laws.

Similarly, there may come a time when the Pope feels the need to intervene decisively against a bishop without the support of the rest of the Episcopacy, and the end result would be the same: the Pope's relationship with the bishops would undergo reexamination and substantial revision, to ensure that something like that does not happen again.

Dear Stuart:

Your description of the Pope as a "constitutional monarch" comes close to reality but not close enough.

The Queen of Britain (and other constitutional monarchs like the Emperor of Japan and the King of Thailand) now do not hold any executive, legislative, and/or judicial powers. Their respective positions are merely ceremonial.

On the other hand, the Pope, as Supreme Pontiff of the (universal) Catholic Church, holds the tripartite powers of a chief executive, legislature, and supreme court, rolled into one. Only, each of these powers are delegated to subordinates of his own choosing. As chief executive, for instance, the Pope is "head of State," "president," and "prime minister."

Hence, the Pope is closer to an "absolute monarch" or to a "dictator!"

However, the Pope exercises these powers in benevolence, i.e., for the good of the entire Church.

Oftentimes, the Popes have emphasized their role as "Servant of the Servants of God!"

Amado

The Bishop has missed stepped, the FSSP, it is a Apostolic society, he should of contacted Rome for direction...

Follow up note...


Canonical status

According to Canon law, the FSSP is a "Clerical Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right." It is not an Institute of
Consecrated Life, and members take no religious vows, but are instead bound by the same general laws of celibacy and obedience as diocesan clergy and, in addition, swear an oath as members of the Society. The Fraternity's Pontifical right status means that it has been established by the Pope and is answerable only to him in terms of their operation (through the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei), rather than to local bishops. A local bishop still governs the Fraternity's work within his respective diocese. In this sense its organization and administrative reporting status are similar to those of religious orders of pontifical right such as the Jesuits and Dominicans.

I'm not too sure that the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Alberta would be any better, according to comments on from the blog posted above:

"Just a question for those who advise attending the Eastern Rite: I am an Extraordinary Catholic who finds himself 140 miles from the closest Extraordinary Catholic Mass but in the midst of a strong Ukrainian Catholic population (in East Central Alberta).

When I am unable to drive to the Extraordinary Mass I bring my Extraordinary family to the Ukrainian Rite. Recently, the priest announced that as a result of H1N1 the Holy Eucharist would be distributed using "disposable" wooden sticks (like the kind the doctors use when you say "Ahh").

Sadly, I have seen the sticks fall to the floor twice while being replaced on a dish held by the server. Also, I am curious how these sticks will be handled after the Mass given the absorption of the Precious Blood into the wood?


Being an Extraordinary Catholic, I am not familiar with the history of Eastern Liturgical practice and would be grateful for any clarification on this modification.

I am grateful for having this opportunity to experience the beautiful liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Perhaps the Saint might have some famous quotation that could shed some light on the Bishop Henry situation "

Stuart, can you share your source for this statement? It is my understanding that it is much too early for the seasonal flu, so it would be quite extraordinary if far fewer people have gotten H1N1 than the seasonal flu. In our area, health care professionals are assuming that any cases of the flu at this time are H1N1. While they could be wrong in their assumption, the fact that they are not even testing would make it difficult to get accurate statistics to prove either side of the argument.

I realize this is anecdotal, but many, many more people of my acquaintance this year have gotten the flu than in previous years. I have not had the flu in years, and I got it. It seems every time I talk to somebody, I hear more reports of somebody being sick. Having said that, we've all recovered from a plain, ordinary case of the flu, as the vast majority of people do.

In our parish, I'm usually one of the first 3 or 4 people to receive Communion. I received on the day I developed flu symptoms. Our priest his family got the flu about 3 weeks after our family did. To date, nobody else in the parish has developed the flu. Apparently, receiving from a common spoon has not created an epidemic within our parish.

Elizabeth

Last years flu has mutated already to become this northern winter's new variety. We in the southern regions await to see what happens this time around. Given we have deaths every year from flu, I suspected this was a media beat up that took peoples minds of the poor performance of the economy. This year I got nothing, while in previous years I can recall getting flu twice in one winter. Mind you those I work with were falling like nine pins all over the place in recent months. I now dont know anyone who has the flu but that may be as we are moving into our summer.

I know that health professionals are much more concerned with the sign of peace than with sharing a Communion vessel, when it comes to transmitting the flu in a Church environment.

Shalom,
Memo

Though I will say the this virus is the PERFECT opportunity for bishops and priests to take the initiative to rid our parishes of the stupid hand-holding during the Our Father, which injures the concept of what Communion is really about, is contrary to tradition, and is not allowed in the rubrics, anyway.

Alexis

According to CDC figures, since January 2009, some 4000 people in the U.S. have died of H1N1 (Swine Flu) vs. some 13,000 for seasonal flu.

You realize that you contradict yourself here, right? First, you state that ten times more people have died of seasonal flu than H1N1. When you actually gave numbers, the figure was closer to three times the number of people. You also didn't provide a source for your statement that far fewer people have gotten it than have gotten the seasonal flu, which was the statement that was more interesting to me. Obviously, the hype about the danger of H1N1 was overblown. I never worried about it. I didn't go to the doctor when I had it, nor did I take my children. I think it is a little misleading to quote annual statistics, beginning in January. H1N1 didn't show up until April and the annual flu season begins in week 40. According to the CDC, 99 percent of flu cases right now are H1N1.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you about the hype. I'm pretty much just arguing for the sake of arguing and I need to get to bed.

Elizabeth

The figures I gave are just for the United States, not worldwide. Many more people die of seasonal flu outside the U.S., particularly where antivirals such as tamiflu are not available. Seasonal flu also affects more vulnerable populations, particularly the very young and very old, whereas H1N1 fatalities have been concentrated mainly among adults age 20-50; even so, deaths are relatively rare.

CDC statistics are done calendar year over calendar year. The seasonal flu season is just taking off now, so to get an idea of relative virulence, you have to go by calendar year. With H1N1 cases now in decline, it does not appear that fatalities from Swine Flu will catch up with those of seasonal flu.