[Just because the article does not say an indult was offered does not mean it didn’t happen. Just move on. Whatever the history is,
LifeTeen.com for Catholic Youth | Leading Teens Closer to Christ”]the LifeTeen web site
reports it in this manner: “2004: Each LIFE TEEN parish receives a video with Msgr. Dale discussing the Liturgical Changes which Rome has asked us to implement. In total obedience to the Bishops, the
teens will no longer come around the altar during the Consecration and we will no longer say ‘The Mass never ends….’ at the end of the liturgy, but rather we will be in communion with the worldwide church.” That is congruous with what the evidence shows.
What does that even have to do with anything? You don’t need to repeat yourself. You already said the article doesn’t mention the indult. We know this. Move on.
We also know you know who the Prefect of the CDWDS was from 2002 until 2008. We know you know who the new Prefect is. You do not need to “name-drop” every single time a liturgical issue comes up. It doesn’t even factor into the equation here!
The same way any person who is given something they should not have can claim that it is taken away from them when it’s taken away. The fact that it was illicit does not change the fact that they had it. We can’t change history. We can only improve the future. Stop dwelling on things that are unchangeable. Hopefully, priests have the knowledge and pastoral ability to catechize on this manner. I share your woe that people who are given something they shouldn’t have and get attached to it are doubly-unfortunate when it is taken away, but we have to use that woe for constructive purposes (i.e. proper catechesis in the future).
And
agapewolf completely understands that; she does not deny it. So drop the issue.
The reason why I have brought up LifeTeen in this thread was because it provides the example of the scenario listed by the OP. It also seems that it has been imitated for situations such as what the OP depicted.
In previous threads, agapwolf has made statements to refute mine concerning this practice. An article from CNS was submitted by her as “proof”, if you will, that what she said was correct. However, upon reading and re-readnig the article, there are some holes in it that do not really answer anything.
I did not engage in name-dropping for the sake of it. It was to establish a time-line. Maybe I should have been more clear. LifeTeen was established in 1985. Was this addition to the Mass made back in 1985? Cardinal Arinze wasn’t even the prefect back then. When a movement wants to do something to the Mass, they would, hopefully, petition Rome for the indult. However, in her post, agapwolf only cited the CNS article, which really didn’t say much about the group pursuing the indult, only that they met with the necessary officials to see about getting Life Teen in conformity with the changes to the GIRM. That was it.
I am well aware of what an indult is. I am also aware that these things are not handed down willy-nilly. What is contradictory, in my opinion, is that there is a claim that an indult was offered (no way to substantiate it), but, then, some time later, a statement comes from the Holy See saying that these practices must stop. You can’t offer an indult on the one hand and then reprimand a group for engaging in a practice that you would have permitted anyway. That doesn’t make sense.
Granted, we are all in agreement that LifeTeen was told to stop, but, who is to say that someone, somewhere, didn’t see something like this transpire at a Mass and decided that they could try it out in their own parish? That is how bad liturtical practices spread like wildfire. You see something odd in one parish, decide it’s a good idea (without consulting the documents) and then bring it over to yours. I have seen this happen quite a bit down here, of late, especially when the imported practices come from another country (that even go against that country’s adaptation of the GIRM).
The fact remains that whether it’s teens or children, no one should be standing in the sanctuary unless these indiividuals are listed in the documents cited. If the scenario in the OP drew its inspiration from LifeTeen, then that is bad. If the scenario was based on the celebrant’s or someone else’s idiosyncratic notion, then that is just as bad.
I realize that this is a hot-potato issue. Evidently, it is also an emotional one. I do not want to hurt anyone’s feelings, and I apologize, if I did, especially to agapewolf. I am reminded of a story I heard in a homliy about one of the early Church councils. From what I recall, this thread (and others like it) are far tamer than these Councils. The bishops were literally turning the councils into slug-fests. That is not my intention here, nor has it ever been. I think that all of us, on either side of this issue, are seeking the Truth. As I stated earlier, we do agree that this practice is gone and should not be employed. But, as I stated earlier, somewhere, somehow, someone got wind of it, not knowing, perhaps, the prohibition, and has run with it.
However, at the same time, I believe that the facts should be out in the open. I also think that there needs to be accuracy in the presentation of both sides. Just as there are those in other threads who have challenged me to provide documentation on things, I think that it is only right that if one makes a claim, it wouldn’t be bad to back it up.
