Is it true that the Divine Mercy Image should not be displayed during a TLM mass?

[Johann_du_Toit]

Pope Pius XII encouraged the Divine Mercy devotion. It was only banned in the 1960’s by the Holy Office under Cardinal Alfredo Ottoviani due to a mistranslation of the original Polish (the ban was not at the urging of the then reigning St Pope John XXIII). After this was corrected however the ban was lifted.

 

[Krisdun]

In a hypothetical situation say a girl wants to be an altar server who attends TLM mass. Asks priest if she can help out but reply is no way because we have rules stuck back in 1962. Of she goes to NO mass where she will be welcomed with open arms…

 

[Fauken]

One example is the use of female altar servers
Canon law is ok with it; TLM rubrics not

If I’m not mistaken, canon law doesn’t forbid a bishop from only letting altar servers be men.

Canon Law and Altar Girls

Q: What does canon law say about altar girls? How did we end up with altar girls after so many centuries without them? –Ginnie A: The whole issue of permitting girls to serve at the altar has beco…

canonlawmadeeasy.com

“Note, though, that while girls are permitted to serve, there is nothing in the law that requires it. In fact, another document was issued in 1994 on this very subject, this time by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (included in Latin on the same Vatican webpage as the authentic interpretation of canon 230.2). The Congregation noted that each Bishops’ Conference retains the authority to determine how best to implement the use of altar girls, acknowledging that using only boys as altar servers remains traditional. The letter also pointed out that many vocations to the priesthood are fostered among young men who function as altar boys, implying that giving this role to boys is still to be strongly encouraged.”

So it’s hardly

no way because we have rules stuck back in 1962.

I know of an OF parish that strongly prefers to have men be altar servers. De jure, women can, but de facto, they’re men.

 

[Krisdun]

yes a bishop can say male only altar servers - not sure how well that would be accepted though today

 

[Fauken]

yes a bishop can say male only altar servers - not sure how well that would be accepted though today

That is not the same though as saying a parish has to have men only for altar servers because they’re stuck in 1962.

 

[Krisdun]

I was referring to NO masses

 

[Fauken]

I was referring to NO masses

Then where’s the conflict between canon law and the TLM?

 

[Krisdun]

As I mentioned in the example I provided above. Such rules could drive girls/women away from TLM if they want more active involvement in the church.

Another example is how to receive communion - on tongue or on hand.

 

[Fauken]

As I mentioned in the example I provided above. Such rules could drive girls/women away from TLM if they want more active involvement in the church

But it’s not in conflict with canon law. There’s nothing that mandates that women must be allowed to be altar servers.

 

[Krisdun]

But they are allowed in canon law. In TLM they are discouraged.

 

[Fauken]

But they are allowed in canon law.

Did you read the article I sent? There is nothing that forbids them from being altar servers. But there’s nothing that says they must be allowed to be altar servers either. It is up to the bishop’s discretion.

Another example is how to receive communion - on tongue or on hand.

Which is another thing that isn’t in conflict with canon law. I don’t think canon law speaks on how communion is to be received, but communion on the tongue is nonetheless the universal norm of the Church, and not communion on the hand. A bishop could ban communion on the hand and be within his rights to do so.

 

[Krisdun]

At least by current canon law the bishop has the freedom to make these choices - which in the vast majority of cases would allow female altar servers and communion by hand. In TLM the rubrics set that these are not allowed or actively discouraged. There is a difference. It is as if the TLM rubrics can overrule a bishop…

The bishop himself has to give permission for TLM to take place.

 

[Fauken]

At least by current canon law the bishop has the freedom to make these choices - which in the vast majority of cases would allow female altar servers and communion by hand.

Communion on the hand isn’t mentioned in canon law. Neither is communion on the tongue. Not every liturgical rubric in the Mass is covered by canon law. That’s why there’s a GIRM and the Congregation for Divine Worship.

The bishop himself has to give permission for TLM to take place.

But he cannot deny a reasonable request for the TLM. The TLM ultimately is regulated by the Pope, not by the local bishop. It is the Pope who mandates that the TLM be celebrated according to the 1962 rubrics. And he is well within his rights to do such a thing.

http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...otu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html

“Art. 5, §1 In parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists, the parish priest should willingly accede to their requests to celebrate Holy Mass according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal. He should ensure that the good of these members of the faithful is harmonized with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.”

" Art. 7. If a group of the lay faithful, as mentioned in Art. 5, §1, has not been granted its requests by the parish priest, it should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is earnestly requested to satisfy their desire. If he does not wish to provide for such celebration, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei ."

 

[Krisdun]

But he cannot deny a reasonable request for the TLM. The TLM ultimately is regulated by the Pope, not by the local bishop.

The bishop’s priority is to maintain accessibility to NO mass - if he thinks TLM is dragging sufficient numbers away from NO he may decide to stop it.

 

[Fauken]

The bishop’s priority is to maintain accessibility to NO mass - if he thinks TLM is dragging sufficient numbers away from NO he may decide to stop it.

A mindset which seems to be at odds with how Pope Benedict XVI viewed both forms:

http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...otu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html

"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite."

 

[Krisdun]

Yes they will of course say there is nothing wrong with TLM (which there isn’t), but their priority now is to maintain as high a NO mass attendance as possible.

 

[Fauken]

Yes they will of course say there is nothing wrong with TLM (which there isn’t), but their priority now is to maintain as high a NO mass attendance as possible.

And so to do that they’ll suppress the EF? That seems both ridiculous and short sighted. If the EF has a larger pull than the OF, then they need to ask themselves what the OF (which, as you say, gives so much freedom to bishops) is lacking that the EF has that causes so much of their flock to prefer the EF, and implement changes. As Pope Benedict XVI said, both forms ought to be mutually enriching.

If a bishop did that, the laity would be writing the Vatican decrying his actions and the reasons for them.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

As I mentioned in the example I provided above. Such rules could drive girls/women away from TLM if they want more active involvement in the church.

Another example is how to receive communion - on tongue or on hand.

Girls who want to be altar servers will go to OF Mass (by the way ,the term “NO” has negative connotations on this forum).

People who want to receive in the hand will go to OF Mass.

People who like how things are done at TLM Mass will go to TLM Mass.

Not seeing any problem, much less a canon law problem.

The bishop’s priority is to maintain accessibility to NO mass - if he thinks TLM is dragging sufficient numbers away from NO he may decide to stop it.

In my current archdiocese, there are over 200 Catholic churches and of that number, probably 5 or less offer regular TLM. I could come up with 4 off the top of my head.
We’re a long way from any “sky is falling” scenario where the bishop would need to stop TLM because it’s “dragging sufficient numbers away” from OF Mass.

How about we worry about things that actually might be happening in the foreseeable future?

 

[Krisdun]

There is no need to suppress EF because the numbers attending TLM aren’t there to justify doing so.

 

[Fauken]

There is no need to suppress EF because the numbers attending TLM aren’t there to justify doing so.

I sincerely doubt they would suppress the EF on the grounds of it being “too popular”. If the OF gives them so much freedom in regards to the liturgy, then I would expect them to implement the things that draw people to the EF in the OF. That’s what mutual enrichment is supposed to do.