Latest TLM Rumor

[Scotty_PGH]

ByzCath:

I have asked this before and it has been ignored but I will try again.

For those who want this universal indult, which is a misnomer because an indult is “a license granted by the pope authorizing an act that the common law of the Church does not sanction” and by making it universal would, in essence, change the common law of the Church, what happens to the parishes that do not want the TLM?

Also, priests can say the TLM whenever they want, privately.

So lets say this happens and all the priests in a diocese decide that they will only celebrate the TLM, yet a majority of parishes do not want this, what happens? Do these parishes now become priestless?

What does the bishop do? Does he just lay off these extra priests while hunting for new priests to serve these parishes that are now priestless due to the priests not wishing to serve them?

What about the promise (or vow in the case of religious priests) of obedience? If the priest is in a parish that does not want the TLM and the bishop can not move the priest, what will happen?

Seems to me that this longing for a “universal indult” is the longing for the end of some parishes and the forcing of those who do not want the TLM out of the Church.

#1 - you probably got no responses to this question in the past because nobody really believes this would ever happen.

#2 - to answer your own question, just look at what happened in the 60s and 70s when parish priests began celebrating only the NO. What happened to those faithful who did not want it? Did they become priestless?

Seems to me that th(e) longing for a (“novus ordo missae”) (was)the longing for the end of some parishes and the forcing of those who … want(ed) the TLM out of the Church

 

[Scotty_PGH]

ByzCath:

I agree with you on this.

I am one that is for the vernacular, but then it is my tradition.

From what I have seen, the 1965 Missal, the was that followed the TLM but was before the current Missal, was more of a vernacular TLM than anything else, why not return to that or something like it?

I have another question regarding the TLM that maybe you could address for me Dr. Bombay.

You said that the priest would have to train the altar servers. Now I have only been to one or two TLM’s but from my reading I understand that the deacon and sub-deacon have roles within the TLM and that the Latin Church had started to use priests to fill these roles. Is it still so today?

This is known as an abuse because when a man is ordained to a higher order he should not go back to a role of one of the lower orders of clergy.

Now this is an abuse we have in the East. During the ordination of a priest, the archdeacon is to lead the candidate forward and present him to the bishop. Even though we do have deacons our Church has been having a priest fill this role.

I’m certainly no expert, but it seems to me that, in my parish, whenever a Solemn High Mass is scheduled, we hear “Deacon so-and-so will be here, so this will be a Solemn High Mass” or something to that effect. I don’t know whether or not it is considered an abuse to have a non-deacon chanting the epistle, for example, but I would think that would rate pretty darn low on the present-day liturgical abuse scale.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Forest-Pine:

Pertinent excerpts from today’s Zenit:

Tridentine Mass “Not a Priority,” Says Cardinal Arinze

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 13, 2005 (Zenit.org).-The prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, Cardinal Francis Arinze, mentioned this at a press conference today when he evaluated the first phase of the synodal assembly.

“No synodal father has mentioned this point,” said Cardinal Arinze, the co-president of the assembly. The so-called Tridentine rite was approved by Pope St. Pius V.

“If there are groups that desire the Tridentine Mass, this is already provided for,” he said. “Bishops may allow it for groups.”
ZE05101305

I don’t think we should be surprised that this topic is not considered a priority for this Synod. They are there to discuss the Eucharist, not the TLM. I feel better, actually, knowing that this topic isn’t being put before these men.

 

[Brendan]

harinkj:

the Vatican will announce that all Latin Rite priests can say the Traditional Latin Mass!!! :clapping:

I hope this turns out to be true.

• Kathie :bowdown:

You meant are authorized to say the TLM. I doubt there are many who can say the TLM

 

[Brendan]

Scotty PGH:

. I don’t know whether or not it is considered an abuse to have a non-deacon chanting the epistle, for example, but I would think that would rate pretty darn low on the present-day liturgical abuse scale.

The Epsistle can be chanted by an instituded Reader, or a qualified lay MAN if an installed Reader is not available.

This done in much that same way as un installed Altar servers act in the role of institutued Acolytes.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Although I hold out no real hope for the “universal indult” any time soon, I’ll put my two cents into the pot.

As far as David’s concerns go, I trust that if Benedict XVI were contemplating issuing permission for the TLM he would also go to great lengths to prevent this from becoming some sort of oppressive Restoration. A possible safeguard would be to allow the TLM as an additional Mass in a parish’s schedule (with the requisite permission to say more than two Masses if so required) until such time as a sufficient number of parishoners desired the TLM to warrant dropping a normative Mass. I don’t really like the idea of having priests say more Masses in a day, but that’s just one idea I had that would attempt to safeguard the legitimate aspiriations of all the faithful. I’m sure more would have to be envisioned, but I do think the TLM could be given a wider licit footing without trampling on those attached to the Mass of Paul VI.

While a deacon and subdeacon are required for a solemn or pontifical high Mass, a priest assisted by altar servers can still celebrate a sung Mass or low Mass. While it is currently illicit for priests to vest as and perform the roles of lesser orders (of which deacon is the only remaining), this was not the case under the 1962 missal, which is the code under which the indult operates. So it would still be possible, I believe, for priests using that rite to exercise the offices of deacon and subdeacon for a solemn high Mass.

Regardless of these considerations, though, allowing every single priest to celebrate the TLM without an indult would probably not add a single TLM to my diocese. There is currently one in the far northeast corner of the diocese, but given the nature of the priests I’ve come into contact with, I’m amazed that there is one priest in the diocese both able AND willing to celebrate that Mass. Most of the priests here would be repulsed by the very notion of the TLM, as I have yet to have seen more than on or two Masses of Paul VI during my 4 months here. The NO has been replaced in this diocese by the Mass of Fr. So and So. I don’t know if the priests would even be capable of procuring all the required vestments as most seem never to have heard of a chasuble. Even if an area could scrape up a hundred Catholics desiring the TLM it could not find a priest to say it for the faithful. That’s just the reality on the ground. I would still welcome the gesture of wider permission for the TLM and appreciate that it might help the faithful in other areas, but I simply wouldn’t see any difference.

 

[dljl]

Some great points on this thread. I especially agree that instituting more Tridentine masses does nothing to address the problem of NO mass abuses. Unfortunately despite the popularity of some Tridentine masses in certain cities, my experience has been that the majority of Catholics prefer the NO. In fact, sadly, I think the more “protestant” the mass is the more popular it seems to be. I’m constantly dismayed that the churches that reverently and correctly celebrate the NO are sparsely attended, but the churches that are trying be “contemporary” are popular (at least in my area).

 

[harinkj]

Brendan:

You meant are authorized to say the TLM. I doubt there are many who can say the TLM

You are SO right!! :clapping:

As a mathematician, I always admire precise logic.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[harinkj]

Andreas Hofer:

While a deacon and subdeacon are required for a solemn or pontifical high Mass, a priest assisted by altar servers can still celebrate a sung Mass or low Mass. While it is currently illicit for priests to vest as and perform the roles of lesser orders (of which deacon is the only remaining), this was not the case under the 1962 missal, which is the code under which the indult operates. So it would still be possible, I believe, for priests using that rite to exercise the offices of deacon and subdeacon for a solemn high Mass.

The statement that I underlined is very interesting. I was not aware of the change with repect to lesser orders. But then, I never bothered to look anything about deacons and subdeacons up in any reference. Are there solemn high Novus Ordo masses? What vestments do those officiating other than the priest wear.

I always learn so much reading these posts. :tiphat:

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[pgoings]

I foresee in the not too distant future where many of the indult priests and FSSP priests are impressed into service to pastor and administer mainstream parishes, saying the mainstream liturgy for the vast majority of mainstream Catholics.

I believe that there are canonical protections against this happening.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

harinkj:

The statement that I underlined is very interesting. I was not aware of the change with repect to lesser orders. But then, I never bothered to look anything about deacons and subdeacons up in any reference. Are there solemn high Novus Ordo masses? What vestments do those officiating other than the priest wear.

I always learn so much reading these posts. :tiphat:

• Kathie :bowdown:

Pope Paul VI abolished what were known as the minor orders (porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte) along with the subdiaconate. In their place he formed two consolidated ministries of acolyte and lector while ceasing to consider these offices clerical as had previously been the case. Thus, the only order remaining with a specific role in the Mass is a deacon, which the priest may not vest or act as.

A deacon vests in a dalmatic, which looks a lot like a chasuble but has sleeves (as opposed to the open sides of a chasuble) and two vertical lines running down the back instead of a cross.

The Novus Ordo Missae has no distinctions such as high and low Mass, even though Masses are obviously celebrated with varying degrees of “solemnity.”

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Brendan:

The Epsistle can be chanted by an instituded Reader, or a qualified lay MAN if an installed Reader is not available.

This done in much that same way as un installed Altar servers act in the role of institutued Acolytes.

We were talking about the TLM.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Scotty PGH:

I’m certainly no expert, but it seems to me that, in my parish, whenever a Solemn High Mass is scheduled, we hear “Deacon so-and-so will be here, so this will be a Solemn High Mass” or something to that effect. I don’t know whether or not it is considered an abuse to have a non-deacon chanting the epistle, for example, but I would think that would rate pretty darn low on the present-day liturgical abuse scale.

An abuse is an abuse. I do not play the rating game as far as that goes.

Here in Rochester, NY, the Solemn High Mass I attended had two priests filling the roles of deacon and sub-deacon.
Andreas Hofer:

Although I hold out no real hope for the “universal indult” any time soon, I’ll put my two cents into the pot.

As far as David’s concerns go, I trust that if Benedict XVI were contemplating issuing permission for the TLM he would also go to great lengths to prevent this from becoming some sort of oppressive Restoration. A possible safeguard would be to allow the TLM as an additional Mass in a parish’s schedule (with the requisite permission to say more than two Masses if so required) until such time as a sufficient number of parishoners desired the TLM to warrant dropping a normative Mass. I don’t really like the idea of having priests say more Masses in a day, but that’s just one idea I had that would attempt to safeguard the legitimate aspiriations of all the faithful. I’m sure more would have to be envisioned, but I do think the TLM could be given a wider licit footing without trampling on those attached to the Mass of Paul VI.

This would require a change in Canon Law as it limits a priest to 2 Masses on Sundays and Holy Days except for extreme reasons then he can do 3. To add yet another will either mean elimination of a current Mass or a change in the Law that limits them.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

ByzCath:

An abuse is an abuse. I do not play the rating game as far as that goes.

Here in Rochester, NY, the Solemn High Mass I attended had two priests filling the roles of deacon and sub-deacon.

This would require a change in Canon Law as it limits a priest to 2 Masses on Sundays and Holy Days except for extreme reasons then he can do 3. To add yet another will either mean elimination of a current Mass or a change in the Law that limits them.

Hence my parenthetical “with the requisite permission…”. I know this would mean a change in canon law, but granting the TLM a parallel normative status implies a change in law anyway, so doing a little extra reorganization to smooth the process shouldn’t be surprising.

As to abuse being abuse, I’m all with you on that.

 

[Kielbasi]

pgoings:

I believe that there are canonical protections against this happening.

I don’t know if that’s the case, but if the church needs indult priests to switch gears and say mainstream Masses for the mainstream masses because of a shortage of priests, that law would certainly be ripe for change.

Just like a cook or supply clerk in the Army can be given a gun and told to fight as an infantryman, although probably wouldn’t be in ordinary circumstances.

 

[Chris_in_Mich]

Kielbasi:

I don’t know if that’s the case, but if the church needs indult priests to switch gears and say mainstream Masses for the mainstream masses because of a shortage of priests, that law would certainly be ripe for change.

The current pope has spoken in favor of organic change in the liturgy, if the majority of new priests were trained to celebrate the TLM then that would constitute such a change. The last time we asked priest to switch gears away from the TLM and to the NO (1970’s) priests left by the thousands and the seminaries emptied, why would anyone want to repeat that.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Kielbasi:

The number of seminarians isn’t at the bottom, but its still not high enough to replace those priests retiring and dying.

Here’s a chart of recent ordinations from the USCCB.

usccb.org/comm/USStatsJune2005.pdf

Number of priests:

1995- 49,551
2000- 46,603
2004- 43,304

The future? Don’t know, but with an average age of American priests in the late 50’s, ordinations are going to have to pick up pretty quickly.

Yes, but the number of faithful is also going to fall significantly in the future, so the Church won’t need as many priests.

 

[Kielbasi]

Dr. Bombay:

Yes, but the number of faithful is also going to fall significantly in the future, so the Church won’t need as many priests.

Anything is possible, but it would be quite a reversal from current trends.

From 1995 to 2004 , the number of Catholics has increased significantly from 60 to 64 million. A much better track record than the Episcopalians or Prebyterians who have suffered significant losses during recent decades.

 

[pgoings]

I don’t know if that’s the case, but if the church needs indult priests to switch gears and say mainstream Masses for the mainstream masses because of a shortage of priests, that law would certainly be ripe for change.

Or the faithful could simply assist at the TLM. But we wouldn’t want to completely uproot what they’re used to, and make them assist at an entirely different form of Mass, would we?

Oh, wait, yes we would. Just like we did in 1969.

In any case, even if the law changed, the priests who have already been ordained for the Indult specifically wouldn’t be affected.

 

[Kielbasi]

pgoings:

Or the faithful could simply assist at the TLM. But we wouldn’t want to completely uproot what they’re used to, and make them assist at an entirely different form of Mass, would we?

Oh, wait, yes we would. Just like we did in 1969.

In any case, even if the law changed, the priests who have already been ordained for the Indult specifically wouldn’t be affected.

The church could certainly make Latin mass the normative mainstream mass if she so chose. But until and unless the church does so, there is an obligation to make what is the normative mass available to Catholics to the best of the church’s abilities.

I don’t think that the Latin mass crowd wants to see many of the ordinary mainstream Catholics at their masses anyhow, I’ve heard the moaning about inappropriate behavior of the faithful at the normative mass, do you really want to hear or see that at your own masses as well.