Rorate Caeli

Philippine Update


First Sunday of Advent 2009, Chapel-Shrine of Our Lady of Atonement, Baguio Cathedral Compound



Bishop Angel Hobayan offers a "private" Low Mass, July 2009.

(This report is intended to be the first in a series on the state of the Traditional Latin Mass in various countries throughout the world. CAP)

In the Philippines, there are currently 9 locations (1 parish church, 1 chapel within a cathedral compound, and 7 other chapels) in 7 dioceses where the Usus Antiquior is available to the faithful on an every-Sunday basis, and under diocesan auspices. These are listed (along with weekday and monthly Masses) in an article that I’ve written for the website of the Ecclesia Dei Society of St. Joseph.


The current situation is a major improvement over the status quo of July 2007, when there were only three “indult” locations in the entire Philippines with an every-Sunday Mass that was open to the public. Filipino traditionalists are certainly thankful for the more than 300% jump in the number of Traditional Latin Masses. In particular, the openness of the diocesan authorities of Cebu and Baguio (in the former, the chairman of the archdiocesan "worship commission" offers the TLM every Sunday, while the latter is the only Filipino diocese that has promoted the TLM at its own initiative) is notable, and there is talk of establishing a personal parish for the traditional faithful in the Diocese of Cubao (but the congregation of traditionalists there has to first buy the land for the parish). Nevertheless, the situation could be a lot better – and that is an understatement!


In July 2008 there had been eleven (or twelve) locations (4 parish churches, one chapel within a parish compound, and 6 or 7 chapels) in 10 dioceses where every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses under diocesan auspices were available to the faithful. Most of these had been listed in an article that I published on this very blog.

As much of the Traditionalist Catholic world now knows, the Archdiocese of Manila released one of the world’s most restrictive directives regarding the “implementation” of Summorum Pontificum. The hostility and ignorance manifested in the guidelines were not surprising; back in 2005, Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales had refused to legalize a TLM that was being celebrated in the city of Manila every Sunday by a South Korean priest, claiming that “Quattuor abhinc annos” (no mention of Ecclesia Dei!) required Traditional Catholics to “celebrate” the Novus Ordo (!) In 2006, the Korean priest went back to his homeland; a fresh request to the Arzobispado for an indult Mass was summarily refused.


The “Manila Guidelines”, dated December 8, 2008, were released early in January 2009 and had been drafted in response to continuing requests by at least two groups for the regular celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. After a sustained uproar in the blogosphere, a formal statement from FIUV, and a reported intervention from Dario Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos himself, the “Guidelines” were removed from the official website of the Archdiocese of Manila. Nevertheless, Summorum Pontificum has not been implemented in Manila, despite the presence of not a few faithful who have asked for the Mass. Even the monthly weekday TLM in the cathedral that was proposed by the Manila Guidelines has not materialized. (There is a First Friday TLM in a small private chapel in Manila, celebrated by the octogenarian former rector of Manila Cathedral, Msgr. Melencio De Vera.)


(Rorate's coverage of the Manila Guidelines can be found here.)


At present, the 9 locations for Sunday TLM seem stable and under no threat, and as the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in the Philippines move towards the more frequent celebration of the Mass of Ages not just for weekdays but for Sundays as well, it is to be hoped that the number of regular Sunday TLM’s will significantly increase once again in the coming years. (The FFI has houses in four archdioceses and two dioceses; of these six, three have no every-Sunday Traditional Latin Mass either under diocesan auspices or the SSPX.)


The liturgical establishment of the Philippines remains wedded to the theories of the 1960’s and 1970’s, and even the faintest signs of the “Benedictine liturgical renewal” are absent from more than a tiny number of chapels and parishes. That crowds of faithful who have no knowledge of the Traditional Mass can be attracted to it merely by hearing about it or by seeing it celebrated once or twice has been proven time and again (especially in the now-suppressed Traditional Latin Masses of the Archdiocese of Manila and the Diocese of Paranaque, both of which attracted sizeable crowds), but this seems to have no effect on the attitude of not a few ecclesiastics.


Nevertheless, there is hope that the attitude of the liturgical establishment will become more positive. One sign of hope is the strong support for the TLM given by Fr. Timoteo Ofrasio S.J., professor of liturgy in the Jesuit Loyola School of Theology, (the country's most prominent theological academy), a former member of the "old" ICEL and once a strong proponent of inculturation and liturgical experimentation. He has spoken of the prayerfulness of the older form of Mass, which he now celebrates daily from Monday to Friday.


Meanwhile, the SSPX continues to maintain a stable presence. A list of SSPX Masses can be found here and here.


(I would like to acknowledge Paix Liturgique, which published its own update on the situation of the TLM in the Philippines in November, based upon an earlier version of this article that I had privately circulated.)

20 comments:

blackshama said...

In fairness to Catholic readers of your blog, you have to mention that the SSPX is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I know people who attend SSPX masses and were surprised to find out later that they really assisted at a non Roman Catholic Mass. The SSPX Mass is valid but is illicit and knowingly attending one is a schismatic act.

Jordanes said...

There is no need to mention yet again that the SSPX is "not in communion" with the Roman Pontiff, that is, the SSPX is not an approved or recognised religious fraternity.

Furthermore, knowingly attending an illicit SSPX Mass is not necessarily a schismatic act.

Anonymous said...

Of course the SSPX never denied communion with the Bishop of Rome, has never been in schism, and their Masses are Roman Catholic.

To be honest, more Roman Catholic than the Novus Ordo.

When they act on demand of faithful asking for a just cause it renders their ministry undoubtly licit by canon 1335. And wheteher the cause was "just" (as in "justice") is always up to God to judge. Now show me one case of the SSPX acting without demand from the faithful.

Knowingly attending one does not constitute a schismatic act. It has been told repeatedly in interviews and official documents by Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos and other Curial officials, even by Msgr Perl. Google for it if you don't believe me and stop spreading old liberal lies.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, being in communion means precisely that you're not in schism. No more, no less. It has nothing to do with canonical situation - no one called the Neocatechumenal Way "not in communion" even though they had no canonical recognition for 40 years. No one called "not in communion" the Institute of the Good Shepherd in 2006 to 2008, no one calls the still not canonically recognized FSSR "not in communion", with its priests incardinated to nowhere.

The situation of the SSPX with its experimental statutes expired in 1975 is similar to the situation of all orders who had to wait for permanent approval. That a conflict has aroused since 1975 is another story.

Jordanes said...

And wheteher the cause was "just" (as in "justice") is always up to God to judge.

No, not always. Sometimes, hypothetically at least, the Church can judge.

Now show me one case of the SSPX acting without demand from the faithful.

The SSPX regularly celebrates Mass even though their priests are suspended and may only offer the sacraments on occasions of genuine emergency when requests by one of the faithful.

Jordanes, being in communion means precisely that you're not in schism. No more, no less.

No, it means more than that -- but for the present discussion, you may note that "not in communion" were blackshama's words, which I quoted and then indicated what blackshama was actually referring to.

It has nothing to do with canonical situation

You're contradicting yourself -- whether or not one is in schism involves canonical situation.

Perhaps what you mean is that "being in communion" does not apply to religious communities that continue to operate in defiance of the Church's order of suppression and without reference to duly constituted hierarchical authority. That point is debatable.

no one called the Neocatechumenal Way "not in communion" even though they had no canonical recognition for 40 years. No one called "not in communion" the Institute of the Good Shepherd in 2006 to 2008, no one calls the still not canonically recognized FSSR "not in communion", with its priests incardinated to nowhere.

Those communities were never suppressed by the Church nor have they been carrying on operations while flouting the Church's authority, unlike the SSPX.

The situation of the SSPX with its experimental statutes expired in 1975 is similar to the situation of all orders who had to wait for permanent approval. That a conflict has aroused since 1975 is another story.

No, it's not similar at all. The SSPX's statutes didn't merely expire -- it's canonical standing in the Church was directly revoked. Whether or not that was just or valid is another question.

Paul Haley said...

If I'm not mistaken the Ecclesia Dei Commission has ruled that Masses of the SSPX are valid, though illicit, and attendance by the Faithful at their masses does not constitute schism per se. This was in reference to a request from a member of the Faithful as to whether one could satisfy one's Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass.

As to this "not in communion" business one could resonably ask why, when sensitive discussions are underway between Rome and the SSPX, this pejorative expression must be repeated again and again, ad nauseam. IMHO it's counter-productive to say the least.

Anonymous said...

"The SSPX regularly celebrates Mass even though their priests are suspended and may only offer the sacraments on occasions of genuine emergency when requests by one of the faithful."

"Genuine emergency" is the case of a declared or imposed suspension. In the SSPX case of undeclared suspension a divinis it is merely "justice".

"You're contradicting yourself -- whether or not one is in schism involves canonical situation."

Denial of communion with other Catholics or unwillingess to recognize Papal authority as the Church defines it constitute schism. Canonical recognition is a consequence of the recognition of Papal authority, but that an order is currently not canonically recognized for whatever reasons, as it was the case of IBP, NC, FSSR etc. is not enough to say that it is in schism.

"Those communities were never suppressed by the Church nor have they been carrying on operations while flouting the Church's authority, unlike the SSPX."

There have been many cases of disobedience and acting in defiance of the authority of the Church in the Neocatechumenal Way. They still totally ignore liturgical laws of the Church, even after famous ultimatum from Cardinal Arinze. Their lay (!!!) catechists continue "preaching", although no one gave them canonical mission or education. They're far more disobedient than the SSPX. They preach whatever they want, totally out of control. They keep profaning Body of Christ by consecrating some kind of matzah, and eat it (communicate) while sitting, leaving the crumbs of the Body of Christ all around. But they're so authentic in what they do, you know, so they are not in schism and Catholic, definitely. No one cares, anyway.

As to the revokation of the SSPX already expired statutes, whether just or not - a recourse puts the revokation on hold. The SSPX's recourse was never examined and they were told that it never be.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley,

Can. 1248 §1. A 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.

The Orthodox rite is approved in the Catholic Church, so it looks like you can fulfill your Sunday obligation in a schismatic Church.

Anonymous said...

Paul Haley: this is what Ecclesia Dei said about SSPX Masses SEVEN YEARS AGO

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/830510/posts

It is unbelievable that people still keep repeating rubbish spread by liberals.

Anonymous said...

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:

"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."

His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:

"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."


Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei" January 18, 2003

János H. said...

You're all so wise here! Please answer a question that's bothering me. Sorry to post it here, but people on Internet forums are very ignorant.

Does praying for things in the past make sense?

Like:
1. Involuntary things we know, for example if you had some accident and you have now some form of impairment as a result, or that you have failed some very important exam in the past and you're now an old fool - does it make sense to pray that it has never had happened?

2. Voluntary things we know - for example that you voluntarily did something that turned out to be bringing bad fruits... does it make sense to pray that it has never had happened?

3. Things we do not know - does it make sense to pray for a conversion of a person (not for his soul) we know is already dead?

My opinion is that it is futile, but I don't know why. God is not constrained by time, so why exactly we don't do that?

Jordanes said...

"Genuine emergency" is the case of a declared or imposed suspension. In the SSPX case of undeclared suspension a divinis it is merely "justice".

We've gone over those canons here before. Your reading of them is mistaken.

Canonical recognition is a consequence of the recognition of Papal authority, but that an order is currently not canonically recognized for whatever reasons, as it was the case of IBP, NC, FSSR etc. is not enough to say that it is in schism.

True, but irrelevant. For one thing, to say that a person or a community is not in schism is not the same as saying he or it is in communion. For another thing, the SSPX isn't merely "currently not canonically recognised."

There have been many cases of disobedience and acting in defiance of the authority of the Church in the Neocatechumenal Way.

True, but with the Neocats there has been no order of suppression that they are disregarding. It is erroneous to classify the SSPX's canonical status as the same as the Neocats'.

Their lay (!!!) catechists continue "preaching", although no one gave them canonical mission or education.

Well, in my diocese they do so with express approval of the bishop: so they at least have canonical mission. Education, probably not.

They're far more disobedient than the SSPX.

Beg to differ: the Neocats at least have permission from the Church to exist (though they do things that give good cause to revoke that permission).

As to the revokation of the SSPX already expired statutes, whether just or not - a recourse puts the revokation on hold. The SSPX's recourse was never examined and they were told that it never be.

In other words, they appealed their sentence and their appeal was denied, which means the revocation and suppression is not on hold.

Now then, with blackshama's mistakes having ben corrected, how about somebody comments on the topic of this blogpost . . . . ?

Anonymous said...

Mr Haley is correct I believe. Rome has said you fufill Sunday obligationif you attend an SSPX Mass as long as their is no intention on the part of the faithful to be in schism or to be against the Holy Father. In other woeds they do not encourage it, but if you wish is simply to attend Traditional Mass and it is not supplied to you via your Diocease you may do so with the SSPX. This is for attending Mass only I believe and it was cleared up a while ago.

Jordanes said...

The Orthodox rite is approved in the Catholic Church, so it looks like you can fulfill your Sunday obligation in a schismatic Church.

No, that's not what the canon says. It says it must be a "Catholic" rite. Orthodox Divine Liturgies are not "Catholic" rites -- they are Orthodox rites. The rites of non-Catholics cannot be "Catholic" rites.

Rome has said you fufill Sunday obligationif you attend an SSPX Mass as long as their is no intention on the part of the faithful to be in schism or to be against the Holy Father.

Strictly speaking, "Rome" has not said anything on this question. There have been no public declarations from Rome one way or the other. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, however, has given that answer in privately correspondence to at least one individual, and that answer most probably does apply generally.

In other woeds they do not encourage it, but if you wish is simply to attend Traditional Mass and it is not supplied to you via your Diocease you may do so with the SSPX.

No, the PCED did not say that. On the contrary, they recommended that the correspondent not attend an SSPX Mass at all. Their answer was tailored to that individuals specific questions and circumstances, and was not necessarily intended to apply in all aspects to any or every Catholic.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Just for everyone's info:

I included the list of SSPX Masses in this post to give a complete picture of the state (and spread) of the TLM throughout the Philippines.

It is not a judgment for or against the SSPX, and on attendance in their Masses.

blackshama said...

As long as the SSPX does not submit completely to the Bishop of Rome and accept all the teachings of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, it is in schism. Attending Mass at SSPX chapels may not be schismatic but there a clear and present danger for a Catholic to fall into schism as Ecclesia Dei says

"While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church"

The final measure of catholicity is indeed communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Anonymous said...

"Orthodox Divine Liturgies are not "Catholic" rites -- they are Orthodox rites. The rites of non-Catholics cannot be "Catholic" rites."

The Orthodox liturgy has been approved by St. Pius X "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter" (no more, no less, no different). So, as long as the have not introduced further changes from the time of St. Pius X they celebrate a Catholic rite. If the Church wanted to say "celebrated by Catholics in any Catholic rite" she would have said it.

In 2003 the SSPX was repeatedly called "schismatic" and the excommunications were not lifted, nonetheless it was possible to fulfill you Sunday obligation by attending a SSPX Mass so I can't see any reason for not fulfilling the obligation by attending an Orthodox Mass.

Are there better and worse schismatics or what? I dare not to accuse the Church of hypocrisy, nor of a fear of competition as the Orthodox churches celebrations are very dignified and theocentric.

Anonymous said...

Janos H do you want to pray that the Second Vatican Council never happened? LOL :)

Jordanes said...

As long as the SSPX does not submit completely to the Bishop of Rome and accept all the teachings of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, it is in schism.

Wrong again. Submission to the Roman Pontiff and to the teachings of valid oecumenical councils are mandatory — so long as the Pope's words or acts are right and just, and so long as the conciliar teachings are binding on the consciences of the faithful.

Now, it's good that you are concerned about the state of the souls of the SSPX's members and adherents. You should, however, be more than a little worried that so many "mainstream," run-of-the-mill Catholics do not submit completely to the Bishop of Rome and accept all the teachings of Vatican II, and therefore in your view are in schism.

Attending Mass at SSPX chapels may not be schismatic but there a clear and present danger for a Catholic to fall into schism

True.

There are also dangers that present themselves at Masses celebrated by priests in regular status with the Church.

Jordanes said...

The Orthodox liturgy has been approved by St. Pius X "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter" (no more, no less, no different). So, as long as the have not introduced further changes from the time of St. Pius X they celebrate a Catholic rite.

St. Pius X approved it for use by CATHOLICS. He did not approve of Catholics attempting to fulfill the Sunday obligation by assisting at the liturgies of Eastern schismatics.

If the Church wanted to say "celebrated by Catholics in any Catholic rite" she would have said it.

Under Church law (not to mention common sense), if a liturgy is not celebrated by Catholics, it is not a Catholic rite. The canon specifically says "any Catholic rite." It is impossible for non-Catholics to celebrate Catholic rites in non-Catholic churches. Only those Rites approved by the Pope, celebrated by Churches in communion with him, are Catholic rites.

In interpreting the Church's canon law, you can't just take one canon in isolation from all the other laws. You have to read all the canons in context with all the others. Now, under canon law Catholics may only assist at Orthodox liturgies if genuine spiritual advantage requires it and the danger of indifferentism is avoided. Furthermore, the Sunday obligation is waived if it is impossible to get to a Mass or Liturgy celebrated by a Catholic priest. Therefore one is never obligated to assist at a schismatic or non-Catholic Orthodox liturgy. Consequently the canon simply cannot be allowing the faithful to fulfill the Sunday obligation at non-Catholic liturgies, even if those liturgies are celebrated with rites that are approved for Catholic use.

In 2003 the SSPX was repeatedly called "schismatic"

Repeatedly, but apparently erroneously.

and the excommunications were not lifted,

The excommunications of the four SSPX bishops never had any bearing on the Masses of SSPX member priests.

nonetheless it was possible to fulfill you Sunday obligation by attending a SSPX Mass so I can't see any reason for not fulfilling the obligation by attending an Orthodox Mass.

SSPX priests are Catholic priests who have been suspended a divinis. Orthodox priests are not Catholic priests at all. HUGE difference.