Indult needed for private celebration according to 1962 Missal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whosebob

Guest
Is it true or not that (all else being equal and under normal circumstances regarding his status in his diocese) a priest may privately (please note “privately”) celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal without the express permission of his bishop?

Could documentation please be provided along with the “yes” or “no” – I have seen conflicting answers coming from even the EWTN.com online Q&A forums.

Thank you for your assistance and insight, and may God bless you.
 
There was a 1986 commission of Cardinals set up to find an answer to this and here are their findings:
  1. In the offices of the Roman Rite, the honour due [debita honor] to the Latin language should be accorded it. Bishops should ensure that on Sundays and ferial days at least one Latin Mass should be celebrated in each important locality of their diocese. However the readings could also be said in the vernacular.
  1. For their private Masses all priests can, at all times, use the Latin language.
  1. For every Mass celebrated in the Latin language - with or without the faithful present - the celebrant has the right freely to choose between the missal of Paul VI (1970) and that of John XXIII (1962).
  1. If the celebrant chooses the missal of Paul VI, he should observe the rubrics of that missal.
  1. If the celebrant chooses the missal of John XXIII, he must observe the rubrics of that missal, but he may also:
use either the Latin language or the vernacular for the readings
make use of the additional prefaces and prayers of the Proper of the Mass contained in the missal of Paul VI, and introduce “preces universales” (bidding prayers).
  1. The liturgical calendar for feasts will be that of the missal chosen by the celebrant.
From the “Norms” of 1986

Here is another letter that might help: Rome Replies: Latin Mass “open to all”

Miguel.
 
40.png
beng:
It is not true. TLM may not be celebrated without indult.
Wrongo!
  1. It may be celebrated privately with an indult from the local Bishop
  2. It may be celebrated publicly with an indult from the bishop
OR
  1. It may be celebrated privately by a priest with a celebret, even if the local bishop objects
However even with a celebret a priest needs permission to say the TLM in public from the local ordinary.

The commission in 1986, which indeed existed and held that the old rite was never abrogated, is not definitive. It’s conculsions, especially after Ecclesia Deu Adflicta and future legislation, are contestable at best. (this from someone who agrees with them)
 
40.png
Ichthus:
Wrongo!
  1. It may be celebrated privately with an indult from the local Bishop
  2. It may be celebrated publicly with an indult from the bishop
OR
  1. It may be celebrated privately by a priest with a celebret, even if the local bishop objects
However even with a celebret a priest needs permission to say the TLM in public from the local ordinary.

The commission in 1986, which indeed existed and held that the old rite was never abrogated, is not definitive. It’s conculsions, especially after Ecclesia Deu Adflicta and future legislation, are contestable at best. (this from someone who agrees with them)
Right now I think it is still very confusing to everyone. Perhaps as time goes on it will be clarified better.

This is a bit dated…before the new directives but interesting reading.
**
Cardinal Ratzinger on the old and the new Mass**

ad2000.com.au/articles/1999/feb1999p10_382.html
 
By “privately”, do you mean by the priest alone, without any member of the faithful in attendance?
 
The following is from QUO PRIMUM of Pope Saint Pius V and it seems to me that he made it quite clear that no priest could ever be force to say any Mass other than the TLM.

" Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing. "

To read QUO PRIMUM in it entirety go to the below link:
dailycatholic.org/quoprimu.htm
 
40.png
EUSTACHIUS:
The following is from QUO PRIMUM of Pope Saint Pius V and it seems to me that he made it quite clear that no priest could ever be force to say any Mass other than the TLM.

To read QUO PRIMUM in it entirety go to the below link:
dailycatholic.org/quoprimu.htm
It’s unfortunately not a Catholic source so it really is not any help…thank you but no thank you. Reading their mission statement tell’s the whole story of their Mission.
So how do we know we are right? Two reasons: First, because what so many Sovereign Pontiffs had condemned as anathema, the Vatican II popes have contradicted and become the apostates that holy saints warned against. Secondly, because prior to Vatican II, the four indelible marks of the Church were intact and in full effect: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. With so much dissension and veering from the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church the church of Vatican II is no longer ‘One’; the barren fruits stemming from Vatican II along with the shocking scandals and lowering of the moral virtue bar give solid evidence the church of Vatican II is no longer ‘Holy’; because, except in the Remnant Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been abandoned in favor of a Protestant service that seeks to de-mystify the Mystery of Faith, thus eliminating the “universal language of the Church” - Latin and therefore the church of Vatican II is no longer ‘Catholic’ or ‘Universal’; and finally, because of the modernist, progressive agendas and the insidious infiltration of the satanic, Masonic and Communist operatives within the Church, the bishops have, by their refusal to uphold the Faith and place their flock as their top priority, abdicated their apostolic succession and made this well known with their assertion that it is not necessary to become Catholic anymore. Therefore, the church of Vatican II is no longer ‘Apostolic.’
 
40.png
EUSTACHIUS:
Alright, you need another source

papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm

It doesn’t matter what site the encyclical is posted on. What matters is what the encyclical says
But one needs to know what an encyclical is, does and if and when it still holds sway or it is a moot point.

This is an old saw I believe with the factions who say the VatII and New Order of the Mass are not valid.

This looks like good info on that particular bent which seems to be what this is about.

stjosephplacentia.org/rcath-l/val_mass.htm
 
Eustachius:

No one can seriously aruge that Siant Pius V was intending to bind future popes by his declaration, which did not deal with an article of faithor morals, but liturgy.

My your (and others’) reasoning, every revision of the Tridentine rite, from 1570 to 1962, would be condemned by Quo Primum.

What is clear is that Christ’s current Vicar does not believe that the faithful have a “right” to the 1962 indult. Otherwise, he would not require priests to receive an indult or celebret to celebrate it.
 
My point isn’t that the Novus Ordo Mass isn’t valid. I go to a Novus Ordo Mass, but I thank God that my priest shows great reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. The problem with the Novus Ordo Mass is many priest don’t, and when priest don’t show reverence neither do the laity. This is not a problem at the Tridentine Mass.

As for Quo Primum beng infallible
catholictradition.org/cfn-primum.htm
 
My point isn’t that the Novus Ordo Mass isn’t valid. I go to a Novus Ordo Mass, but I thank God that my priest shows great reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. The problem with the Novus Ordo Mass is many priest don’t, and when priest don’t show reverence neither do the laity.
Amen to everything you wrote here!
This is not a problem at the Tridentine Mass.
I must object to this. I may be only 19 years old, but I’ve spoken with many priests and lay people from the pre-Conciliar era who speak of many abuses that priests and lay people used to engage in. These abuses certainlt were of a different nature than those today, but they were abuses and sinful nonetheless.
As for Quo Primum beng infallible
The schismatic article you linked to gives absolutely no proof for its position that *Quo Primum * was anything more than disciplinary. It just regurgitates this claim and expects us to believe it.

Not unlike the Sedevacandists who go so far as to say that the 1962 reforms weren’t even valid. :rolleyes:
 
Quo Primun was a disciplinary document and not binding on the universal Church.

A Bishop is the ordinary for his diocese and he alone decides what Masses may be offered in his diocese.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Eustachius:

What is clear is that Christ’s current Vicar does not believe that the faithful have a “right” to the 1962 indult. Otherwise, he would not require priests to receive an indult or celebret to celebrate it.
I have no idea where that type of mis-information comes from. I am sure you believe it for some reason or other but it is certainly not correct. JPII has always since day one of his pontificate worked to make sure the Latin was retained. He has said many times over and over that it is to be retained and taught.

He can lead but so far no one listens. As a cradle Catholic who has lived through the confusion for all the years before and after Vatican II, I know for certain JPII has never promoted such and agenda…just the opposite in fact.
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
SAPIENTIA CHRISTIANA
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
POPE JOHN PAUL II
ON ECCLESIASTICAL UNIVERSITIES AND FACULTIES
n. 3. A suitable knowledge of the Latin language is required for the Faculties of the sacred sciences, so that the students can understand and use the sources and the documents of the Church.(2)
The eternal good news is maybe finally it will be done.
Vatican media official talks up role of Latin
A new document on the use of Latin in the Church, and the teaching of Latin in seminaries, is expected sometime this year.
Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, the prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, has confirmed that he hopes the document being prepared by that Congregation will be published in 2004.
“In order not to mutilate herself, the Church cannot fail to conserve her tradition and patrimony written in Latin,” the Polish cardinal remarked during a February 25 meeting in Rome. He pointed out that Latin remains the official language of the Roman Church, and the official documents of the magisterium are written in that language. Therefore, he concluded, the Church needs priests who are familiar with the language, in order to ensure that they fully understand Catholic teachings.
Cardinal Grocholewski expressed regret that previous Vatican statements encouraging the teaching of Latin in Catholic seminaries-- such as Pope John XXIII’s Veterum Sapentia of 1962-- are clearly not being applied. He added that Pope John Paul II had also encouraged Latin study in his 1979 apostolic constitution Sapientia Christiana, and the 1983 Code of Canon Law states calls for a “good understanding” of Latin among Catholic priests. On the 40th anniversary of Veterum Sapentia, Pope John Paul said that he would like to see “an ever stronger love for that language among the candidates for the priesthood.”
 
Um . . . Marie?

My post had nothing whatsoever to do with the use of Latin in the liturgy. It has to do with the faculties to say the 1962 Tridentine indult.

Two different issues, babe.

No priest needs permission to say Mass in Latin. Said permission is needed to say Mass according to the Rubrics of 1962.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Um . . . Marie?

My post had nothing whatsoever to do with the use of Latin in the liturgy. It has to do with the faculties to say the 1962 Tridentine indult.

Two different issues, babe.

No priest needs permission to say Mass in Latin. Said permission is needed to say Mass according to the Rubrics of 1962.
I am way too old to be a babe! But nice thought… 😃 Do you call your grandma Babe? LOL! She probably gets a tickle out of that one too. Thanks for the compliment. 😉

Yes, I know what you mean on the above but you specifically stated that John Paul II was at fault and this is patently not true.

John Paul II has not brought that about…it is the Bishops who REFUSE to follow his directives. Think of it this way…A father can get the attention and guide his children in a family of 3 or 4 these days MAYBE. Society has eroded the authority of every father and mother and person in authority to the point it’s a miracle kids learn respect and obedience at all these days.

Papa JPII has more than one or two delinquent children and his arms not long enough to smack em unfortunately. They fall on both sides of the spectrum. Liberals and Traditionals and Pew sitters, and if he had a dog, at this point the poor thing would die trying to fend off the attacks on his master from all the wolves in sheeps clothing the church has now days.

If I have read or heard him say it once, I have heard him say it a million times in the last 25 years…The Latin Mass is to be Widely and Generously offered. No one’s listening. :rolleyes:
 
I didn’t “fault” the Holy Father with anything at all.

Against those who wrongly claim that the faithful have an unqualified “right” to the Tridentine Mass, I made mention that the Holy Father certainly does not believe this, which is why Ecclesia Dei was set up in the first place. To over-see indults and celebrets.

If every priest had a “right” to say the Tridentine Mass, he wouldn’t need to get an indult or celebret in order to say it.

I know that saying this is common sense, but heresy has a really nasty habit of clouding the intellect more than it already is . . .
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
What is clear is that Christ’s current Vicar does not believe that the faithful have a “right” to the 1962 indult. Otherwise, he would not require priests to receive an indult or celebret to celebrate it.
I don’t understand son why you wrote the above then I guess. What did you mean by it? I don’t know how else to read it except that you belive JPII does not believe the faithful have the right. He is the only Vicar of Christ we have. You lost me somewhere going round the mountain I guess. :confused:
 
Actually, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

No Catholic, strictly speaking, has a “right” to the Tridentine Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top