Indult Implementation

[Purificator]

dumspirospero:

I believe that every Parish should have at the very least one TLM every Sunday…it could be really early or later in the day such as 0700 or 1400 hours. I think this would be the best solution…then everyone would have access to the TLM…and there should be no restrictions, therefore if a Parish wanted to go strictly to TLM’s for every Mass, they would have the support, authority, and ability to do so.

1.) Many parishes only have a single Mass.

2.) For those that have more than one, we need to keep in mind that priests can only celebrate so many Masses per day (bination or trination I believe) except in emergency situations. If the Tridentine Mass has few attendees and the Pauline Masses are packed, the Tridentine Mass will be cut in order to make room for a new Pauline Mass.

 

[Mysty101]

Anna Elizabeth:

Sorry, Mysty, I don’t know what you are getting at. I will try to make my questions more simple.

1. What’s complicated?

The Mass was changed. I agree that the Latin Mass should be preserved, but why change the Mass, if the congregation is allowed to tell you that they will not change? Just as the norm for Communion should not have been changed, if it was not allowed to be enforced. You cannot allow the people to tell their Bishops what is the “common Spiritual good”.

And those who refuse to stand for Communiion (when there are no provisions) have proved my point. Why show an uncooperative person that he just needs to demand and he will get what he wants, regardless of the norms? If those who wished the indult were cooperative about the standing norm when they attended an NO Mass, perhaps the bishop would see that indults could be granted without having problems in other matters.

1. How does disregarding a norm by someone prevent the granting of an indult to other people?

Is my reasoning clear?

1. Is the disregarding of norms somehow less of a problem if perpetrated by enthusiasts of liturgical dance, creative recipes for Eucharistic Hosts or innovative Eucharistic Prayers? If so, how so?

You cannot compare liturgical dance (could be a cultural allowable option)with invalidating the consecration.

1. Are you sorry that the advice of VII’s Sancrosanctum Conciliam (36) re the use of Latin is not more evident in the US?

I love the Latin Gregorian chant, And the Greek Kyrie, and Latin Agnus Dei. the Chanted Pater Noster, etc., but anything else deminishes the understanding of most of the congregation.

Thanks for a comfortable dialog.

 

[batteddy]

“The Tridentine cannot be restricted. Read Quo Primum.”

Blah, blah, blah. We’ve heard it all before.

I like the Tridentine better too…at least in principal, having read the missal…but its obvious that no Pope can restrict a future Pope on matters of discipline. If a Pope wants to restrict the Tridentine, he sure as hell can.

And if the Pope John Paul required an Indult to say it…clearly it is no longer the normatively allowed missal of the Roman Rite.

Now, I attended an indult mass just yesterday…it was a High Mass…and I was excited…but honestly I was a little disappointed. Maybe I would like a low mass better…because with the High Mass Choir singing everything…and the priest with his back to us…I couldn’t tell whether he was moving on and reading some prayers while the choir finished the long Gloria…or if the priest was just biding his time…waiting for the choir to finish. With the choir singing…I could NOT follow it as well as I would have liked. I had to wait until he turned around to say that thing where the response is “Et cum spiritu tuo” all those times to catch up a bunch because I couldnt tell when the priest was praying, or when he was waiting for the choir to finish.

Also, he talked VERY quietly. Not just for the parts that are SUPPOSED to be whispered, but for the parts I should have been able to hear in latin. Or should i have?

The text of the old mass is definitely much better than the new and conveys the theology of the Eucharistic Sacrafice much better…but I WISH I could hear it!

 

[Ecce_Homo]

Mysty101,

Comparing the choice of some to kneel for Communion (or disregard the local norm) to the bishops’ general disregard of a generous implementation of the TLM is a poor comparison, indeed.

In the case of kneeling, the communicant is taking advantage of an option given by Rome to kneel (albeit an option not expressed by the GIRM), whereas in the latter case, the bishops have no directive from Rome authorizing the suppression of the Mass of the 1962 Missal. To the contrary, they have received instructions for its generous application.

Turning to the question of indult implementation, per the thread…

I agree with dumspirospero that each parish should have a weekly TLM, although I would be overjoyed just to see a single parish per diocese devoted to the TLM.

I attend an FSSP traditional Mass held in a chapel that holds 80 people. Regularly, 150+ people attend each of the two Masses held on Sunday, yet we can’t buy or build a church building of our own that would accommodate us because the bishop won’t allow it. The average age of our community is very young, and there are many large families, as well as college students. I think there is a real, significant need for the TLM, and I hope more bishops will come to realize that.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I also went to a Tridentine Mass last Sunday here in Lincoln, NE at St. Francis of Assisi. Small, but pretty church, plus it was only about 5 blocks from my apartment.

It was interesting, but I did not see what was so much better about it. There was no microphone, and I couldn’t hear much of anything. Didn’t help that the priest didn’t really speak up and he went awfully fast. I couldn’t keep up, so I just read through the missalette. I can see why people used to pray the rosary and do other stuff like that during Mass (even though that is not allowable). I did like the Communion rail and the Latin language though. I’ll probably go back to get another taste of it, but I am totally happy with our regular Masses.

I really don’t see what is the big deal with it. The Novus Ordo is just as good if done properly, but I will admit that I am blessed to be in Nebraska under the Diocese of Lincoln and Archdiocese of Omaha (haven’t ever really been to anywhere in the Grand Island Diocese but I would bet they are good) and have not as of yet run into any abuses in the saying of the Mass. It is well within the Authority of the Church and the Pope to change the Missal, therefore I really can’t see why people don’t just accept the Novus Ordo Mass and be done with it.

 

[Purificator]

Ecce Homo:

Mysty101,

Comparing the choice of some to kneel for Communion (or disregard the local norm) to the bishops’ general disregard of a generous implementation of the TLM is a poor comparison, indeed.

In the case of kneeling, the communicant is taking advantage of an option given by Rome to kneel (albeit an option not expressed by the GIRM), whereas in the latter case, the bishops have no directive from Rome authorizing the suppression of the Mass of the 1962 Missal. To the contrary, they have received instructions for its generous application.

Turning to the question of indult implementation, per the thread…

I agree with dumspirospero that each parish should have a weekly TLM, although I would be overjoyed just to see a single parish per diocese devoted to the TLM.

I attend an FSSP traditional Mass held in a chapel that holds 80 people. Regularly, 150+ people attend each of the two Masses held on Sunday, yet we can’t buy or build a church building of our own that would accommodate us because the bishop won’t allow it. The average age of our community is very young, and there are many large families, as well as college students. I think there is a real, significant need for the TLM, and I hope more bishops will come to realize that.

1.) No such option exists.

2.) The Holy See leaves the application of the indult up to the local ordinaries.

3.) 150+ person Mass is tiny for these parts.

 

[Sacramentalist]

the bishops have no directive from Rome authorizing the suppression of the Mass of the 1962 Missal

The Tridentine Mass no longer exists as a normative rite of the Church, so it is impossible for a bishop today to “suppress” it. It’s very usage is allowed by way of “indult” or “exception.”

“Wide and generous” is also a subjectively relative phrase. A bishop is under no legal obligation to have It offered in his diocese; he may have a moral obligation to do so, if in his conscience he knows it will be spiritually beneficial to his flock. Otheriwse, there is no such obligation.

 

[Sacramentalist]

ComradeAndrei:

It was interesting, but I did not see what was so much better about it. There was no microphone, and I couldn’t hear much of anything. Didn’t help that the priest didn’t really speak up and he went awfully fast. I couldn’t keep up, so I just read through the missalette. I can see why people used to pray the rosary and do other stuff like that during Mass (even though that is not allowable). I did like the Communion rail and the Latin language though. I’ll probably go back to get another taste of it, but I am totally happy with our regular Masses.

If the Tridentine liturgy you went to wasn’t sung, it was a Low Mass.

It’s customary at these liurgies that the Mass be audible only between priest and servers. The faithful follow along in the Missals. To those who become familiar with the Tridentine Mass, it’s not difficult to follow along and pace yourself.

A sung liturgy, or High Mass (and, with a deacon and subdeacon, a Solemn High Mass); is a much better representative of the spirit of the Tridentine liturgy.

Which same spirit is also present in the Normative Mass on those rare occasions when it is celebrated reverently.

 

[batteddy]

“It was interesting, but I did not see what was so much better about it. There was no microphone, and I couldn’t hear much of anything. Didn’t help that the priest didn’t really speak up and he went awfully fast.”

Well, exactly the problem I had.

Let me put it this way. I would much rather be the PRIEST saying the Tridentine mass than the congregation “hearing” the mass. Then again, it IS the priest’s mass.

What I believe is “so much better about” the Tridentine is the text itself. Not so much the celebration, which I did find rather confusing and dry, but the actual TEXT of the missal. The prayers express Catholic theology much better and less ambiguously than the Novus Ordo. There is a lot more emphasis on the Sacrafice, the Victim, the Glory of God, etc.

When I read the Novus Ordo I feel like it is watered-down and protestantized. It obviously doesn’t contain any heterodoxy…but it doesn’t contain ENOUGH orthodoxy either.

Also, the Novus Ordo is more conducive to the problem (noticed even by Pope Benedict in his book as cardinal on the Liturgy) of the Liturgy become too much about the People and not enough about GOD.

The Tridentine text is more reverent and mysterious…

The bad thing is…at High Mass with the choir singing…even though the priest did have a microphone (I think)…I couldn’t follow it consistently. I was looking up there. The choir was singing what I couldn’t tell if was a Gradual or a Tract…and the altar servers are doing bows and stuff that I dont see prescribed in the Missal…and the priest sorta stood there and I didn’t know if he was praying or waiting. I didn’t know when the priest had finished the Collects and moved on…

And then the whole congregation didn’t know whether to Genuflect twice during the creed (once when the priest genuflected when reading the creed to himself and once when the choir sang the part about the Incarnation)…and the Last Gospel was not audible so it was anyone’s guess when to genuflect for “And the Word was made flesh”

The second half (when the choir doesnt sing as much) was better. I could follow it more easily and it did seem like a Service…but the Mass was quiet and confusing.

I WANT to like the Tridentine Mass because the text is so much more beautiful…but when I actually attend them…I am left wanting something. I wish I could HEAR all the latin (besides the parts I’m not supposed to like the canon) and not have it sung over or sped through.

 

[Mysty101]

Ecce Homo:

Mysty101,

Comparing the choice of some to kneel for Communion (or disregard the local norm) to the bishops’ general disregard of a generous implementation of the TLM is a poor comparison, indeed.

It was more to give a possible explanation for the Bishop’s reluctance. Wouldn’t you be more likely to accommodate people who were cooperative? Haven’t you heard the expression “Give an inch and they take a yard”? I am not speaking liturgically, but in regards to human nature. Both situations are allowed, but as they say, “One hand washes the other”.

In the case of kneeling, the communicant is taking advantage of an option given by Rome to kneel (albeit an option not expressed by the GIRM), whereas in the latter case, the bishops have no directive from Rome authorizing the suppression of the Mass of the 1962 Missal. To the contrary, they have received instructions for its generous application.

The option is tenuous at best. AS I said before, it is very poor support for authority to approve a norm, yet not allow it to be enforced. And the reason for the wording is not to allow disregard for the norm, but to forbid Eucharistic sanction for a minor abuse. There is a difference.

I agree with dumspirospero that each parish should have a weekly TLM, although I would be overjoyed just to see a single parish per diocese devoted to the TLM

This is your opinion, but as I said, there is little call for it in many diocese, and the attitude of many traditionalists or whatever they wish to be called, has done much to hurt the cause…

I attend an FSSP traditional Mass held in a chapel that holds 80 people. Regularly, 150+ people attend each of the two Masses held on Sunday, yet we can’t buy or build a church building of our own that would accommodate us because the bishop won’t allow it. The average age of our community is very young, and there are many large families, as well as college students. I think there is a real, significant need for the TLM, and I hope more bishops will come to realize that

I would definitely agree in your situation, unless the people are obstinate when they attend other Mases. Do you know if most of the congregation follow the norms when they attend a Pauline Mass? What I am trying to say is that a Bishop may be reluctant to grant an indult, if he feels that the permission would be taken as permission to follow Tridentine norms at a Pauline Mass, or even lead to an attitude of disrespect for some norms.

 

[Mysty101]

bumped for Anna Elizabeth

 

[palmas85]

Here in San Diego, the Indult mass is celebrated at the chapel in the local Catholic cemetary. The Tridentine Mass Congregation which does the planning and sets the mass up does a beautiful job, and the masses are very well and highly attended. I would say hundreds on a normal Sunday and even more for special occasions. The priests are from an Abbey in Riverside County I believe, with at least one and possibly two retired local priests. The Bishop has attended and celebrated mass here as well. While I have heard horror stories about other places, the Traditional Mass here in San Diego seems to be in fairly good shape, well attended, beautifully put on with a lot and I mean a lot of younger people attending. The only problem that I can see is the facility itself. While not small in size it is not adequite for the number of people attending. Hopefully one day the Bishop will see fit to allow this congregation to move into a proper church or maybe even develop an orthodox parish. Based on the number of people I see every week it could certainly work and work well.h and for those who say there is little if any difference in the 1962 Missal and later versions, I can only say you haven’t read them. The differences are tremendous. Not only in the language, but in the content as well.

 

[rcn]

dumspirospero:

I believe that every Parish should have at the very least one TLM every Sunday…it could be really early or later in the day such as 0700 or 1400 hours. I think this would be the best solution…then everyone would have access to the TLM…and there should be no restrictions, therefore if a Parish wanted to go strictly to TLM’s for every Mass, they would have the support, authority, and ability to do so.

You are showing that you either a) misunderstand the indult and the terms of “Ecclesia Dei”, or b) disagree with it.

You are proposing a strategy to aggressively revive the TLM. To stir up demand where none exists. That’s not what the indult is about. The indult exists so that people who want it, may have the opportunity to have it offered in their diocese.

But “at least one every Sunday, in every parish”? It’s not practical, and it’s not justifiable.

 

[pnewton]

I voted for the different solutions answer. Leave it up to the local bishop and those who advise him to decide what is best. He is the shepherd and is responsible for the diocese.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Though I think that the indult shoud be found in at least one permanent location in each diocese, I’m not confortable with the A in “A permanent location”. I’m in a diocese that could really use at least two and possibly three in areas where these is demand. A rotation on top of a permanent location (or three) would be ideal

 

[mrblue]

Every parish should have a tridentine rite Mass every Sunday. If this were done, Catholics would slowly come to recognize it as a superior expression of reverence and holiness, and would gradually abandon the sentimentality and congregationalist hoo-hah of the Novus Ordo. As the current generation of bishops gratefully slips into retirement, all things become possible.

 

[EJ79]

I think that the Tridentine Mass should be permitted wherever the faithful legitimately desire that rite of Mass in particular.

Rather than saying that EVERY parish should have at least one Tridentine Mass (remember Advent 1969?- that would be imposing a rite on those who prefer another - and that type of unsuccessful maneuver is what occured under Paul VI, causing alot of harm) - I would argue in favor of every parish offering at least one Novus Ordo Mass celebrated and sung in Latin, with the option at least of the celebrant facing east (ad orientem).
Yet another option is if at least one Mass were offered with gregorian chant that the people could follow.

We should be respectful of all options that the Church has legitimately approved of - if one is to prevail over the other, we should leave that to God - and feel free to follow what we each prefer, if it is within what the Church approves of.

 

[A.Pelliccio]

It should be offered frewquently, but hopefully with stability. Its a real pain to have to parish jump.

 

[Detroiter]

EJ79:

I think that the Tridentine Mass should be permitted wherever the faithful legitimately desire that rite of Mass in particular.

Rather than saying that EVERY parish should have at least one Tridentine Mass (remember Advent 1969?- that would be imposing a rite on those who prefer another - and that type of unsuccessful maneuver is what occured under Paul VI, causing alot of harm) - I would argue in favor of every parish offering at least one Novus Ordo Mass celebrated and sung in Latin, with the option at least of the celebrant facing east (ad orientem).
Yet another option is if at least one Mass were offered with gregorian chant that the people could follow.

We should be respectful of all options that the Church has legitimately approved of - if one is to prevail over the other, we should leave that to God - and feel free to follow what we each prefer, if it is within what the Church approves of.

Do you seriously think, that God wanted 50 new Eucharistic prayers which were added to the Mass in the Netherlands after a year of vernacular Masses in 1967! One year and 50 new EP came up! The EP 2,3,4 didn’t even exist and the Roman Canon[now known as EP I] was the ONLY "Eucharistic Prayer’. Only a year of a vernacular Mass caused this!

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Detroiter:

Do you seriously think, that God wanted 50 new Eucharistic prayers which were added to the Mass in the Netherlands after a year of vernacular Masses in 1967! One year and 50 new EP came up! The EP 2,3,4 didn’t even exist and the Roman Canon[now known as EP I] was the ONLY "Eucharistic Prayer’. Only a year of a vernacular Mass caused this!

Why am I not surprised?

Detroiter, I happen to be exceptionally interested in the differences among Eucharistic Prayers, although this may seem a strange interest.

Could you give me a reference for this super-activity in the Netherlands following VII? I’d really like to be able to get this in print so that I can show others that "messing around’ with the Eucharistic Prayers was a major part of the post-VII liturgical agenda.

God bless,

Anna