Indult Mass and Rights

  • Thread starter Thread starter Herrobp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably not the best one to be reading - it seems to be anti Vatican II.

Then as soon as possible I would get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is also available on line but you will need a copy for your RCIA anyway)

As you read it, you can ask questions to the apologists section here.

I recommend these three sites

www.catholicanswers.org
www.ewtn.com
www.catholic.org

also catholicculture.org/sites/sites.cfm

allows you to see ratings on different catholic sites

On line you can find the Code of Canon Law and most of the documents referenced in the CCC.
 
40.png
deogratias:
Probably not the best one to be reading - it seems to be anti Vatican II.
Click to expand...
It’s important to recognize the distinction between obedience to the Pope in matters of doctrine, and the ability to be critical of blatantly bad disciplinary / liturgical decisions. Being “Anti Vatican II” doesn’t neccesarily mean one isn’t orthodox or is a “schismatic.” While there is no call for disobedience (SSPX, Feeneyites, denying the validity of the NO), there isn’t anything inherently “schismatic” about a critical (if rather harsh) analysis of the council’s results.

From what I’ve seen on the site, the articles don’t go so far as to be sedevacantist or to deny the validity of Vatican II as an Ecumenical Council, but they do attack some of the vague language (Dei Verbum 11, for example) and the confusion it’s wrought.

As for CatholicCulture.Com, their site reviews seem to assume that any criticism of the Pope’s pastoral decisions (Altar Girls, Assisi, etc) or of the “fruits” of Vatican II is tantamount to schism, and even flag sites with “yellow” or “red” on their Fidelity Rating because of it! I think this is a mistake, and unfair to the site owners.

God Bless!
 
Just one reminder, the first Feenyite groups to reconcile with Rome did the Novus Ordo Missae in English.
 
I don’t concur with your opinion
It’s important to recognize the distinction between obedience to the Pope in matters of doctrine, and the ability to be critical of blatantly bad disciplinary / liturgical decisions. Being “Anti Vatican II” doesn’t neccesarily mean one isn’t orthodox or is a “schismatic.”
Click to expand...
Do you go to the FFSP Mass made available to you in Littleton? If you do, I would ask Fr. Salgado or the other priest their if they concur with this, OTOH if you belong to an SSPX Church, then this is the answer I would expect as it is their normal reply.

Historically it is this very thing that let to the excommunication of Bishop LeFebvre - what they were teaching at their seminary about Vatican II.

Archbishop Lefebvre attended the Vatican II council and put his signature of approval to all 13 of the Council documents.: He later recanted this support because he saw many post Vatican II priests and theologians attacking many aspects of worship which were of long tradition and part of the Church prior to Vatican II.

The Archbishop decided to found a priestly Society which would preserve the Latin liturgy and the traditional customs of the Church. The seminary to train these priests was in place by 1970 and was called the priestly Society of St. Pius X. No problem with Rome then.

It was brought to the Holy See’s attention that the seminary was teaching some anti-vatican II rhetoric (as the SSPX still do) and by 1975, a formal investigation of the seminary and its teaching occurred.

The Archbishop refused any attempts to change the seminary, and so Pope Paul VI himself had to intervene and ordered the Archbishop not to ordain the first ordination class of 1975.

Which he did anyway in disobedience to Rome.
 
40.png
deogratias:
I don’t concur with your opinion

Do you go to the FFSP Mass made available to you in Littleton? If you do, I would ask Fr. Salgado or the other priest their if they concur with this, OTOH if you belong to an SSPX Church, then this is the answer I would expect as it is their normal reply.

Historically it is this very thing that let to the excommunication of Bishop LeFebvre - what they were teaching at their seminary about Vatican II.

Archbishop Lefebvre attended the Vatican II council and put his signature of approval to all 13 of the Council documents.: He later recanted this support because he saw many post Vatican II priests and theologians attacking many aspects of worship which were of long tradition and part of the Church prior to Vatican II.

The Archbishop decided to found a priestly Society which would preserve the Latin liturgy and the traditional customs of the Church. The seminary to train these priests was in place by 1970 and was called the priestly Society of St. Pius X. No problem with Rome then.

It was brought to the Holy See’s attention that the seminary was teaching some anti-vatican II rhetoric (as the SSPX still do) and by 1975, a formal investigation of the seminary and its teaching occurred.

The Archbishop refused any attempts to change the seminary, and so Pope Paul VI himself had to intervene and ordered the Archbishop not to ordain the first ordination class of 1975.

Which he did anyway in disobedience to Rome.
Click to expand...
Some Catholics tend to think VATICAN II was a DOGMATIC infallible Council, in the likes of the Council of Trent, or Vatican I. NOT:cool: . Hence, while we must maintain ourselves in UNION with the Pope, we can disagree with what he says as a person,i.e. NON-Ex-Cathedra, non-encyclical. For example, if the Pope likes Pizza, must all CATHOLICS too? Also, one must be weary to listen to the ACTUAL Vatican II documents, NOT the feminist so called: “spirit of vatican II.”
www.ecclesiadei.org FOR A DIRECTORY OF INDULT TRIDENTINE LATIN MASSES IN THE USA.
 
Surely you are not saying that we don’t need to obey anything that came out of Vatican II are you?

Here are all the Vatican II Documents. How many have you actually read? Notice that some of them cleary say DOGMATIC DOCUMENTS

Documents of Vatican II
 
40.png
Herrobp:
But in his Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia Dei ( July 2, 1988 ), the Holy Father said:

"To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask support of the Bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.

“By virtue of my Apostolic Authority I Decree … respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal … of 1962.” (Emphasis added.)

The Holy Father views an attachment to the Tridentine mass as a “rightful aspiration”. Doesn’t “rightful” indicate the existence of a right?
Click to expand...
THIS IS SO EXCELLENT!!! Yes, we have the right to attend the Indult Latin Tridentine Mass. I hope we are not labeled as judgemental for just repeating what is already the teaching of the church on this.
 
40.png
Ichthus:
Actually its requirement is not in Canon law

The indult is required by papal authority, not canon law.

Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not determine the rites to be observed in the celebration of liturgical actions. Accordingly, liturgical laws which have been in effect hitherto retain their force, except those which may be contrary to the canons of the Code.

And an indult just means permission to deviate from a law. In the US we have an indult for communion in hand, for moving Asension to Sunday if the bishop desires, etc. These are not in canon law always, but liturgical law

And there is an issue of immemorial custom and whether or no Paul VI aborogated the old Rite. It was the opinion fof the 1986 commission that he did not. However, at least with Ecclesia Dei adflicta I think one can say the old rite was derogated, that is the provisions of Quo Primum were changed as far as new legillation has been passed superceding it, but not totally

As for the original questions
  1. No one has the right to say Mass. However Catholics do have the right to have Mass in the rite of their sui iuris Church. Nevertheless that doesn’t really apply to the Missal of John XXIII, for the rite is that of Paul VI. It was argued, previously, that because Paul VI did not aborogate the old rite, that priests had the privilege intact of using it privately but not for public Mass.
  2. Notwithstanding controversy about the legal status of the Missal of John XXIII, an indult is required, generally, in order to deviate from norms. The Pauline Mass is the norm, ergo an indult is necessary, such as one is needed for communion in hand, which is against immemorial custom as well as universal law.
  3. Techinically an indult is not required for a private Mass. The local Ordinary must grant the indult for a public Mass. He can also grant such permission for a private Mass. However a priest with a celebret (from the PCED) may celebrated the old rite, even if the local Ordinary objects, in a private Mass. Public Mass always requires the indult.
  4. That was a rumor. Contrary to Arinze, there might very well be future permission. But it is unlikely. Ratzinger, who supports a wider use of the old rite, doesn’t even support the universal indult. Indeed there are issues with one.
Click to expand...
I really pray that there is a universal indult soon.
 
40.png
misericordie:
Some Catholics tend to think VATICAN II was a DOGMATIC infallible Council, in the likes of the Council of Trent, or Vatican I. NOT:cool: .
Click to expand...
Vatican II was an ECUMENICAL council. No one started making distinctions until they didn’t like what Vatican II rolled out. While in the end it may turn out that this distinction holds true, it seems a tad fishy to try to just brush aside the council by calling it pastoral. I don’t like everything it did, but I’m torn as to how to receive it and, while a good point, the lack of dogmatic definitions does not seem like enough for me to close the case on it.
 
The Church still has authority and not every thing is an infalllible teaching yet we still must obey the Church.

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

This and part II on the Catholic Answers Main site may help some understand the Authority. It does not matter if a council was dogmatic, pastoral, ecuminical or any other tag, what matters is that the church has the authority to advise, mediate and guide.

Now there is a difference between DOGMA and DOCTRINE - and I would also recommend reading on this site

catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

This business about Vatican II being a pastoral and not a dogmatic council is one of the favorite Mantra’s of the SSPX.
 
40.png
deogratias:
The Church still has authority and not every thing is an infalllible teaching yet we still must obey the Church.

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

This and part II on the Catholic Answers Main site may help some understand the Authority. It does not matter if a council was dogmatic, pastoral, ecuminical or any other tag, what matters is that the church has the authority to advise, mediate and guide.

Now there is a difference between DOGMA and DOCTRINE - and I would also recommend reading on this site

catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

This business about Vatican II being a pastoral and not a dogmatic council is one of the favorite Mantra’s of the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Should not these links be on the “what is your favorite linkf thread”??? And to post the links twice?:hmmm: Some may consgrue that as maybe spamming?:yawn:
 
it seems a tad fishy to try to just brush aside the council by calling it pastoral.
Click to expand...
This business about Vatican II being a pastoral and not a dogmatic council is one of the favorite Mantra’s of the SSPX.
Click to expand...
If the SSPX insist on calling it a pastoral council, that’s because IT WAS a pastoral council. Even Cardinal Ratzinger concurs:

“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council”–Cardinal Ratzinger
**

**
 
40.png
deogratias:
The Church still has authority and not every thing is an infalllible teaching yet we still must obey the Church.

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

This and part II on the Catholic Answers Main site may help some understand the Authority. It does not matter if a council was dogmatic, pastoral, ecuminical or any other tag, what matters is that the church has the authority to advise, mediate and guide.

Now there is a difference between DOGMA and DOCTRINE - and I would also recommend reading on this site

catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

This business about Vatican II being a pastoral and not a dogmatic council is one of the favorite Mantra’s of the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Actually, with all due respect, when Pope John the XXIII opened the Council, he himself stated it was to be a pastoral council, not seeking to dine anything new, nor to condemn anything, according to HIM.:hmmm: .
 
40.png
misericordie:
Actually, with all due respect, when Pope John the XXIII opened the Council, he himself stated it was to be a pastoral council, not seeking to dine anything new, nor to condemn anything, according to HIM.:hmmm: .
Click to expand...
Sorry for the typing error, I actually meant to say: "not seeking to DEFINE anything new, nor to condemn anything, according to HIM.
 
With equally due respect, did you read the two sites I referenced on Catholic Answers?

What do you think that means by the way - Pastoral - that we don’t have to obey anything that came out of Vatican II - I think I asked this before?

I really want to know what you believe and why, not what someone else like the SSPX has to say about this being “only a pastoral council”.

Because I want to get to the truth of things, by the way, does not mean I am not humble. Sometimes, as Bishop Sheridan so aptly said, “the truth is sometimes divisive”.
 
Isn’t it like “Humanae Vitae”, so to speak?
Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on Human Life with its references to contraception etc. is glossed over by many Catholics because, “the Pope wasn’t speaking ex cathedra, therefore, the encyclical is not infallible, therefore we don’t have to follow it”. But it contains authentic Catholic teaching, over 2000 years worth. Why WOULDN’T we have to follow it?

And with Vatican II, "it was a pastoral council, therefore it wasn’t supposed to deal with anything like dogma or doctrines, therefore:
a. WE can deal with them, in the “spirit of Vatican II”, and call everything we do “right and good” because, well, if dogma or doctrine weren’t the issues of the council, we’re not going AGAINST Vatican II, we’re just changing around things we don’t like or putting in things we do.
b. Since all sorts of things supposedly were “ok’d” by Vatican II, if we try to change them, we’re interfering, we’re anti-Christian, we’re neo-cons, we want to force everybody back to the Dark Ages, we want to get rid of women. . .

BUT . . .in regards to both encyclicals and councils, aren’t they part of the general teaching of the Catholic church? Aren’t we supposed to OBEY the general teaching of the Catholic church?

No offense to lawyers (really) but we have too many ARMCHAIR lawyers and weekend “theologians” around today. Too many people who want to find loopholes for whatever reason. Too many people who aren’t willing to jettison their cherished but wrong abuses and their beloved but poorly formed consciences, on the grounds of how they FEEL, how it makes OTHERS “feel”, “what would JESUS do”, etc. Too many people whose Catholic “education” was a sham, for a whole host of reasons, and who are so caught up with whether it’s THEIR fault, their TEACHERS’ fault, God’s fault, etc. that they don’t seem to understand that finding out they have a problem is only the first step in solving it. Wallowing in excuses instead of moving on to educate oneself is lazy; refusal to educate oneself is at best stupid and at worst damning, in the Catholic sense of the word.

Okay, rant over (I think). I KNOW we’ve had our share (and more) of liturgical abuses, poor catechesis, scandal, sorrow, and sin in the last 40 years–but let’s put it in perspective. We always have sins, sorrows, abuse etc. It’s not endemic to the Catholic church and it’s certainly not endemic to the past 4 decades alone.

What matters is what we DO about it.
OTOH, the last few decades have given me a great insight into what it might have been like during the Protestant Reformation. The cries of “abuse”, “scandal”, “the Bible”, “the church” etc. were just as loud then, and the at least as bitter. Look what happened, because too many people “felt” that they alone were right, they alone knew God (and I am NOT just focusing on Protestants here), they alone could judge. . .

Lots to think about, even more to pray about. In His name, His love, and His peace.
 
40.png
deogratias:
Surely you are not saying that we don’t need to obey anything that came out of Vatican II are you?

Here are all the Vatican II Documents. How many have you actually read? Notice that some of them cleary say DOGMATIC DOCUMENTS

Documents of Vatican II
Click to expand...
Just because a document contains the term Dogmatic in the title does not make the document dogmatic. If you believe that they are dogmatic then please tell us what dogma was defined in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and in the Dogmaitic Constitution on Divine Revelation.

James
 
40.png
James0235:
Just because a document contains the term Dogmatic in the title does not make the document dogmatic. If you believe that they are dogmatic then please tell us what dogma was defined in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and in the Dogmaitic Constitution on Divine Revelation.

James
Click to expand...
Excellent!! The best response here yet, :clapping:
 
40.png
deogratias:
Surely you are not saying that we don’t need to obey anything that came out of Vatican II are you?

Here are all the Vatican II Documents. How many have you actually read? Notice that some of them cleary say DOGMATIC DOCUMENTS

Documents of Vatican II
Click to expand...
Actually, I not only have read them, I took it up at a Jesuit University, where I earned my BA degree in theology/religion.
 
There is a degree of misinformation that circulates rather breathlessly within the Novus Ordo, viz. that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is in schism and that one cannot attend masses said by SSPX priests. I encourage you to read the web sites sspx.org, sspx.ca, and sspxasia.com so that you can find out what they say for themselves. It has been broadly demonstrated that attending an SSPX mass is completely safe. Also, there was a great injustice in the way the SSPX was treated by the Vatican from the period 1975 - 1988.

Much as some observers oversimplify and caricature the pre-conciliar Church, the positions of the SSPX in respect of the Second Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo rite of mass, and other details tend to be poorly understood. Two human interest points to consider: Fr. Somerville, who worked on the ICEL, has recently stated that he regrets his work within the Novus Ordo, and has affirmed the SSPX as a faithful group upholding Catholic tradition. St. Padre Pio, loved by almost all Catholics, was horrified at the changes being proposed to the liturgy in the mid-1960s, and begged “for pity’s sake” (1) that the council be ended to avoid as much damage as possible. He considered 1965 a “time of darkness”.

The “Tridentine Mass”, which in essential details dates to Pope St. Gregory, is an immemorial custom, and to deprive Catholics of it is an unjust hurt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top