www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Did the Pope impede the authority of local bishops with SP?

I came across the above two quotes in another thread. For the record, I tend to lean towards Marduk's interpretation of the papal primacy within the Catholic communion (with several slightly different nuances) and while I would love to hear his response to Cavadarossi's comment, I offer the following thoughts:
1) Pope Benedict did not impede the legitimate authority of the local bishops over their own flock for he argued that the Christian faithful have a right to be nourished by the ancient patrimony of the Latin Church; thus, it was not right for the bishops to deny the faithful their own patrimony. The Pope intervened for the good of the faithful, not on a whim.

2) Pope Benedict felt that certain local bishops were depriving those of their flock who had a particular and legitimate devotion to the older form of the mass, and thus felt the need to intervene for the good of the Christian faithful. Again, not on a whim.

3) I have never seen evidence that the MAJORITY of the episcopate forbade the Tridentine mass and opposed Summorum Pontificum...many bishops did, but that doesn't equate to a majority. Many bishops had granted permission for the TLM to be said in their dioceses long before SP and many bishops, in recent years, have even celebrated pontifical high masses themselves.

4) As Pope Benedict states in SP, the older form of the mass as promulgated by St. Pius V was never canonically abrogated, and thus, arguably, it was not lawful for bishops to forbid it outright in the first place.

I see this as a legitimate exercise of papal primacy for the good of the Christian faithful...not an usurpation of the legitimate rights of local bishops.

There is NO DOUBT that Summorum Pontificum was an end-run around the local bishops so they wouldn't fail to implement access to the usus antiquior. Why? Because Pope Benedict, povero deluso, still hoped against hope to gather in the SSPX schismatics or, at least, to deprive them of their base. Sorry, but it didn't work. But what does the authority of the local bishop over the liturgy in his own diocese matter when Vatican realpolitik is at stake? (That is not a rhetorical question! Any doubts? Just ask the Orthodox!)

I see I have violated my own policy not to infect this site with matters of interest only within the communion of the Latin Church. Sorry! Still reeling from 'Christ is risen' privation!

Father bless!!

I've wondered about that, too. It used to be the norm on this board to offer the Paschal greeting at the beginning of each person's post to any thread during the paschal season. Sadly that seems to have become a thing of the past.

Bob

Christ is risen!

Forgive me, I didn't know the forum's tradition.

Certainly the Holy Father had the SSPX in mind, but it was not only for them. Throughout the Latin Church there were groups of the faithful who were legitimately devoted to the traditional form of the liturgy who were being deprived by their local bishops. As patriarch of the Latin Church, Pope Benedict intervened to ensure that these faithful would not be deprived of their own heritage. Priests and laity had been appealing to Rome for years. This wasn't a matter of Rome vs the global episcopate...many bishops already permitted the TLM in their dioceses. Yes, Summorum Pontificum failed in reconciling the SSPX, but it has led to a multiplication of lawful, diocesan TLM masses throughout the world.

I always include it on my answer machine and cell-phone's outgoing message, but as of today I use our standard greeting, "Christ is in our midst." "He is and ever shall be." Be well, dear son!

Indeed He is Risen!!

twf:

Welcome to the forum. My reponse to Father was not a criticism of you, but a support of his observation.

The usual greeting as of yesterday--the Leave-Taking of Pascha--is as he relates.

Christ is in our midst!! He is and ever shall be!!

Your topic should have been posted to Town Hall since the topic does not relate to the Christian East. It is a topic strictly limited to the Latin Church.

Bob
Moderator

Just to be sure I have this straight...
If the Pope makes some sort of a decree (so the Orthodox and some others of the East seem to say) it is manifest proof of Rome's "agenda" to lord it over everything.
On the other hand, if we look around and see how in many places in the Roman Catholic Church decrees are NOT being carried out, that is cited (by the Orthodox and some others in the East) as proof of how horrible (or at least less than the holy ideal) things are under the Pope. Is it a dance or is it a funeral (Luke 7:31-35)? I say all this not to rile people up, but out of sheer frustration. I grew up Protestant, was Orthodox for many years, very briefly Melkite, and am now Roman Catholic. I honestly don't know why we ever even dream of a Church united around the Cross when people are so welded to their positions. Re. Summorum Pontificum--it is necessary because some bishops will not do their jobs. Because it helps raise the bar on reverence for the liturgy, I would think the East should welcome it as a positive development.