Pope John Paul II’s Motu Proprio Ecclessa Dei was an indult. It expanded permission offered in The Congregation for Divine Worship’s document Quattuor Abhinc Annos.Is the MP an indult?
I was thinking of the earlier one NOT the MP (as evidenced by how I did not reference it in any way).
Summorum Pontificum is not an indult; rather, it was the opposite: it affirmed a universal right to celebrate in either the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form, although the Extraordinary Form (since it’s extraordinary) has certain restrictions.Is the MP an indult? I was thinking of the earlier one NOT the MP - I only borrowed a term from it as I was not aware of such a term being used before this when there were possibly ‘dueling’ valid missals.
That’s what I suspected (as Fr. Z suggested as well).Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum basically said that an indult is not now (and in reality never was) required for a priest to use the 1962 Missal.
It would seem you missed my point even with my question and clarification.Summorum Pontificum is not an indult; rather, it was the opposite: it affirmed a universal right to celebrate in either the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form, although the Extraordinary Form (since it’s extraordinary) has certain restrictions.
Nope. Fools and simpletons adhere to both ends of the spectrum and not a few are located in the middle. I find that most people do not have critical thinking skills, coupled with an inability to actually listen - an act that requires not only shutting one’s mouth, but also disengaging one’s brain path which seeks to immediately refute what the other is saying. It is a whole lot less about being smart, and a whole lot more about learning how to listen.=Andreas Hofer;3309261]Fair enough - lot’s of people on these forums have no clue what an argument looks like and come off as ranting lunatics - but I happen to think these people show up on both sides of most issues. If you’re trying to say that on this particular issue it is only those who oppose communion in the hand who have no critical thinking skills, or that all those who oppose communion in the hand are so challenged, this would unfortunately place you in the same boat.
And the problem with common sense is that it is not common…But that is a very narrow realm of possibilities, and it must also be governed by common sense.
All too true..they just thought they were justified in doing it and were pretty sure (correctly in this case) that Rome wouldn’t punish them for it.
I don’t think that an indult gives “permission to break the rule”; rather, it gives a sub-rule as an alternative proceedure. The sub-rule is limited by whatever limits Rome sees fit, which may be location, or the level of permission needed, etc.You’re right that there seems to be some dissonance, but that’s because you’re including the channels followed to receive permission to “do something against the rules” as part of the rules themselves. For communion, the universal rule is “receive on the tongue.” The fact that Rome lets people ask for permission to break the rule doesn’t change what the rule itself is. If you like, you might refine your definition of indult to “permission to do something the rules only allow you to do with explicit permission from a superior.” That might get closer to the heart of the matter.
Except that Summorum Pontificum basically says the indult isn’t (and wasn’t) necessary because the older form of Mass was never abrogated; thus, the indult in Quattuor abhinc annos – and later in Ecclesia Dei – was an error.“Suggestions” aside - as well as the ‘right’ of a priest to say the TLM privately without his bishop’s approval - an indult indicates that public celebration of the TLM was illegal and granting one, using the logic as has been applied to CITH, was the lesser evil when dealing with disobedient clergy and laity.
Summorum Pontificum IS NOT being discussed and I can’t believe that you continue to force it into any effort to discuss this.Except that Summorum Pontificum basically says the indult isn’t (and wasn’t) necessary because the older form of Mass was never abrogated; thus, the indult in Quattuor abhinc annos – and later in Ecclesia Dei – was an error.
Another difference between the two cases is that, for the 1962 Missal, it was a matter of a long-standing tradition (namely, the liturgy of the Roman Rite) being “replaced” by something new, whereas for Communion in the hand, it was a matter of a former tradition that had not been practiced for quite possibly a thousand years and was now against the law starting up again without permission.
I’m only bringing it up because it nullified the indults that existed for the 1962 Missal.Summorum Pontificum IS NOT being discussed and I can’t believe that you continue to force it into any effort to discuss this.
It has nothing to do with discussing the parallels in being able to do something because of an indult.I’m only bringing it up because it nullified the indults that existed for the 1962 Missal.
I don’t know the history of the use of the 1962 Missal between the time the 1970 Missal was released and the time of the indult granted in Quattuor abhinc annos. Do you have any documentation I can look at that explains the situation?So if you have no interest in discussing what went on then (not what happened in recent history) and the parallels then why participate?
This does not address the topic of the thread.It is my recollection (I don’t have documetns at hand) that JP2 granted an indult to say the EF, and then, when it was largely ignored, granted an indult a second time. I could be wrong that there were actually two indults granted by him; it may be that the second time he simply reiterated the original.
There has been a good deal of to do about B16’s noting that the EF was never abrogated; all the to do about it amounts to not much more than an intellectual bull session at the local pub.
No matter whether the EF was officially abrogated or not, for all practical purposes it was treated as abrogated. The simple way of saying it is that everyone who was officially involved with the issue - the bishops and Rome - treated it as if it were abrogated; that is why an indult was granted. Most of that had to do with the fact that no one really asked the critical question: was it in fact and in law abrogated? Without asking the critical question, no critical answer was given; all just assumed it was and acted accordingly.
When B16 saw fit to revist the issue that the indult was being ignored in many ways, the critical question came to the surface and provided the means of resolving the issue of permission to say the Mass (not needed, as it was not officially abrogated).
Thus the two issues appear to be similar, but are not in terms of legal status, although had someone asked prior to B16 revisiting the issue, most people who were the deciders - the bishops and Rome - most likely would have considered them to be similar as one was no longer the law (Communion waas to be distributed on the tongue) and the other was presumed to no longer be the law (the OF was presumed to have replaced the EF).
What more do you wish to be said on the topic, then? I gave you my take on the matter with my first post, which basically reiterated Memoriale Domini’s points. I don’t think I misrepresent the CitH indult and its historical origins, nor do I think the situation over the CitH indult is analgous to the 1962 Missal indult.This does not address the topic of the thread.
I think you’re really getting into trivial semantics with the analysis of indult. It is “permission to do something the rules do not allow,” “permission to do something illicit,” which I take you seem to think involve intentional bias against the action, or it is “an exception granted to the rule,” which I think you might read as intentional approval. I, on the other hand, see them as all describing the same thing.I have never heard those who made use of that indult say ‘well isn’t it a good thing, now we have legalized breaking church law’.
Shouldn’t we be consistent in how we talk about ALL items allowed by indult?
Which means that I’m not implying that any and every indult represents a concession for the sake of a lesser evil. In fact, many indults are exceptions made for the sake of the greater good. These tend NOT to arise from disobedience. Say a priest had been a talented surgeon before his ordination, and now Cdl. Such-and-such is ill and that priest is the best man for the job. His superior might grant an indult. No disobedience necessary.“Suggestions” aside - as well as the ‘right’ of a priest to say the TLM privately without his bishop’s approval - an indult indicates that public celebration of the TLM was illegal and granting one, using the logic as has been applied to CITH, was the lesser evil when dealing with disobedient clergy and laity.
What I never could understand is why the Church didn’t redesign the Host after she allowed communion in the hand. I mean, think about it. The round thin wafer, by its design, was meant to make it easier for the priest to put on one’s tongue and swallowed whole. It looked someone awkward, then, to put that small piece into the cupped hand where it could easily be mishandled because of its small size. Many, if not most, people are used to eating in larger pieces. Why not a whole loaf of consecrated and passed around to everyone, similar to the way Christ distributed Himself? Just my thoughts.
that might be the only thing that would satisfy E M
“Passed” around to everyone?.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
“Passed” around to everyone?.
that might be the only thing that would satisfy E M