Should Traditionalism be its own Rite?

[Gabriela]

1 minute ago, Amppax said:

What about a structure such as a personal prelature? Or personal ordinariate, like the Anglican Use has? 

Don't those already exist? I know I've heard of trad priests being granted "personal" something-or-anothers.

[Sponsa-Christi]

22 hours ago, Amppax said:

What about a structure such as a personal prelature? Or personal ordinariate, like the Anglican Use has?

This is theoretically possible, but might not be the best thing to try practically speaking.

For one thing (and I'm actually saying this even as someone who prefers the NO), I think this would probably make the TLM less accessible, since it would add another layer of bureaucracy. Right now, basically any priest who wants to and who knows how can offer the TLM, and any pastor is free to add a regular TLM to his parish's Mass schedule. But if the TLM were to become the official liturgy of a specific prelature/ordinariate, it could be that the TLM could then only be offered under the official auspices of that specific group. E.g., it could be that the TLM would then therefore be restricted only to offical "TLM Ordinariate" parishes. 

 

22 hours ago, Gabriela said:

Don't those already exist? I know I've heard of trad priests being granted "personal" something-or-anothers.

I know there are some religious communities and societies of apostolic life (like the FSSP) who are dedicated to the TLM. When these groups take on parishes, those parishes generally offer Mass and the sacraments exclusively in the extraordinary form. But I don't think there are any groups like this that are a "personal" anything just yet. The only personal prelature that exists right now is Opus Dei, and I believe that the Anglican Ordinariate is the only personal ordinariate. 

There was some speculation that a reconciled SSPX might become a personal prelature or ordinariate, with the thought being that this would be the best fit for a canonically regular structure for that group. But of course, this is a bit of a mute point at the moment since an SSPX regularization doesn't seem to be imminent. 

[Gabriela]

What is a personal prelature, and a personal ordinariate, technically speaking? I mean, what's the "personal" mean in those cases?

[Sponsa-Christi]

58 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

What is a personal prelature, and a personal ordinariate, technically speaking? I mean, what's the "personal" mean in those cases?

In a shorthand, non-technical way, personal prelatures/ordinariates are sort of like non-geographical dioceses.The "personal" classification means that it pertains to persons---meaning that you're a member because of some personal condition, such as being an Anglican convert---rather than some other classification, like a geographical area.

It's sort of parallel to how there can be personal parishes within the territory of a normal parish that minister to a certain group of people. For example, a small city near where I live used to have four parishes---there was the normal territorial parish for the area, and within a two-mile radius there was also the Polish national parish for the recent Polish immigrants; the Italian national parish for the Italians, and the Irish national parish for the Irish. The national parishes were "personal," because if you were Polish/Italian/Irish (i.e., with your nationality being a personal condition of yours) you could be considered canonically a member of your national parish rather than your territorial parish. 

Personal prelatures and ordinariates function like dioceses in the sense that they can incardinate their own secular (i.e., non-religious) clergy, and that their jurisdiction can include laypeople. (In contrast, while a group like the FSSP can run parishes and do a lot of pastoral work with a specific group of laypeople, a layperson---aside from maybe a seminarian---would not ever fall under the jurisdiction of the FSSP superiors.)

However, personal prelatures and ordinariates aren't exactly like dioceses in all respects. The personal prelature of Opus Dei claims authority for lay "supernumerary" members only in spiritual matters, but in other practical things lay members are still under the jurisdiction of their territorial bishop. I think (but am not sure) that the Anglican Ordinariate is a bit more comprehensive---as in, I think the Anglican ordinary does have practical jurisdiction over the lay members in the Ordinariate.

I hope that all makes some sort of sense!

(On a side note...and interesting question is how or whether a woman in the Anglican Ordiariate could discern a vocation to be a consecrated virgin. On the one hand, the Ordinary would be "her bishop." But on the other hand, it's at the discretion of the local diocesan bishop to admit women to consecration. This is not, however, an issue for the one personal prelature in existence, since being in a public state of consecrated life is not allowed in Opus Dei!)

 

[Gabriela]

Huh. That's super interesting. So, what is the difference between a prelature and an ordinariate? Just the amount of practical authority each has over laypeople (the prelature less, the ordinariate more)? And what kinds of "practical things" would a layperson still be under the bishop for? I'm having kind of a hard time seeing what "jurisdiction" means, in practical terms.

The "personal" bit is totally clear now, though. Thanks, Sponsa!  (Have you written a blog post on this? If not, you totally should.)

[Amppax]

13 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

This is theoretically possible, but might not be the best thing to try practically speaking.

For one thing (and I'm actually saying this even as someone who prefers the NO), I think this would probably make the TLM less accessible, since it would add another layer of bureaucracy. Right now, basically any priest who wants to and who knows how can offer the TLM, and any pastor is free to add a regular TLM to his parish's Mass schedule. But if the TLM were to become the official liturgy of a specific prelature/ordinariate, it could be that the TLM could then only be offered under the official auspices of that specific group. E.g., it could be that the TLM would then therefore be restricted only to offical "TLM Ordinariate" parishes. 

Agreed, I was more interested in whether or not it was a possibility. I think this sort of solution would only make sense in terms of reconciling the SSPX. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

13 hours ago, Gabriela said:

So, what is the difference between a prelature and an ordinariate? Just the amount of practical authority each has over laypeople (the prelature less, the ordinariate more)?

To be honest, I'm not as perfectly clear on the best way to phrase exact nature of the differences as I would like to be. The main official difference is that a prelature has a prelate and an ordinariate has an ordinary, but that might be a bit too tautological for you!

To try to give a rough-and-ready answer, though, an ordinariate has a standing that's much closer to that of a normal diocese. 

But a big complicating factor with personal prelatures is that there is only one personal prelature in existence right now, which is Opus Dei...and Opus Dei is unique in a number of ways. (Basically, the whole concept of a personal prelature was more or less invented by Opus Dei canon lawyers to try to figure out a way to give Opus Dei an official "home" within to formal structures of the Church.) So when you're talking about personal prelatures, it can be hard to work out what is an Opus Dei-specific thing vs. a personal prelature-specific thing. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

13 hours ago, Gabriela said:

And what kinds of "practical things" would a layperson still be under the bishop for? I'm having kind of a hard time seeing what "jurisdiction" means, in practical terms.

"Jurisdiction" basically means governing authority. E.g., a normal diocesan bishop has jurisdiction over his own diocese, but not over the diocese next door. 

While secular laypeople are for the most part subjects of their local diocesan bishop, obviously this doesn't mean that the bishop acts like a religious superior towards them. Probably the vast majority of Catholic laypeople could live their whole lives without ever really NEEDING to consider exactly which bishop would function as their "ecclesiastical superior." However, there are a few areas where a bishops is called to exercise his authority over laypeople in a practical way. 

Off the topic of my head, the thing that comes most readily to mind is being the one to grant permission/a dispensation to marry a non-Catholic/non-Christian. I think the Anglican Ordinariate ordinary could probably do this, but I'm not sure. 

A bishop is also the one who is supposed to admonish his subjects (whether lay or clerical) who are departing from the faith in a serious or scandalous way. E.g., if Dr. Scooter the bad theologian lives in Los Angeles, the CDF would probably go through Arbp. Gomez to get Dr. Scooter to clarify his thesis in his latest book arguing that there are four persons in the Trinity. But if Dr. Scooter was an ex-Anglican who was a part of the Ordinariate, I think it would be the Ordinary's responsibility to dialogue with him, even if the Ordinary was based in Texas. 

Another random example is that, when you study at a Pontifical University (at least in Rome), as part of the application everyone needs a letter of introduction from their "ecclesiastical superior." For laypeople, this generally means the bishop of the diocese where they have a residence. But I'm guessing that if a layperson from the Ordinariate wanted to study in Rome, they would get a letter from the Ordinary as opposed to the local bishop.

I'm also wondering if the Anglican Ordinariate functions like a diocese in terms of certain kinds of record keeping or overseeing parish archives. But again, that's just a guess on my part. 

[Gabriela]

@Sponsa-Christi: Super helpful, even if not 100% certain. Thanks so much!  

[Sponsa-Christi]

Well, it looks like there is going to be at least a personal parish for the TLM in New Hampshire: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/05/first-traditional-personal-parish-in.html

(I'm saying "looks like," because it's hard to tell from the linked article precisely what the canonical situation of the parish in question is. It could be that Rorate Caeli is just calling it a personal parish, when it might technically fall in another category. But I think this information still fits in with our discussion here.)

[Jack4]

On 5/12/2016 at 8:53 AM, Sponsa-Christi said:

It's not really canonically possible. To give a very simplified explanation, when we talk about different "Rites" in the Church, this implies a significantly different liturgical heritage than the TLM versus the NO. It runs much, much deeper than a simple administrative decision or juridical organization.

The general idea is that, as Peter was the Apostle went to Rome, other Apostles went to different parts of the world and founded other "ritual Churches" that developed their own local liturgical traditions. E.g., the Coptic Rite developed in Egypt; the Syro-Malabar in India, etc. 

The TLM was the normal form of the Roman Catholic liturgy from Trent until Vatican II, at which point the NO became the "Ordinary Form" of the Roman liturgy. So both the TLM and the NO are equally "Roman." The differences are a matter of historical sequence and not of deeply-rooted liturgical heritage. Thus, I can't imagine how it would be possible to re-package traditionalism as a totally different ritual Church. 

Hello!

I am an Eastern Catholic and I have a question. There are many sui iuris Churches which use Byzantine rite forms?