TLM Indult Signing Date

[CatholicNick]

What if the faithful in a particular parish do not want the TLM but the priest and bishop do, is it then imposed on the faithful even though they don’t want it and even though it is an indult Mass only and not the normative.

I have the NO imposed on me almost every week - as do many traditionalists who have no choice but to go to the NO, as the TLM is pushed to the edge of dioceses in the middle of nowhere, once a month at rediculous times, sometimes not even on a Sunday.

I dont want it.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

What if the faithful in a particular parish do not want the TLM but the priest and bishop do, is it then imposed on the faithful even though they don’t want it and even though it is an indult Mass only and not the normative.

Oh, certainly not. The horror. The horror. We can’t have a Mass imposed on the faithful that they didn’t ask for and don’t want.

That would be so un-Catholic.

The horror.

 

[AlexV]

First off, Thistle, nobody said much against “imposing” anything in 1970. It was obey or else.

Further, if the pope really signs a motu proprio giving complete liberty to the so-called Tridentine Mass, then all this silly unhistorical talk of “normative” and “indult” will end.

“Normative” has NO liturgical appearance as a term describing Mass until 1967. In that year, Bugnini called his first performance of the Novus Ordo the “Missa Normativa”, meaning that Mass one would expect to see on Sundays.

It is useful to note that a majority of bishops who witnessed the January performances (there were 3) voted against what they saw.

The term “normativa” never appeared again in conjunction with the Mass. It does not appear in the 2002 Missal.

 

[steve_green_2]

Oh, certainly not. The horror. The horror. We can’t have a Mass imposed on the faithful that they didn’t ask for and don’t want.

That would be so un-Catholic.

The horror.

Indeed my good Doctor !

 

[Digitonomy]

What if the faithful in a particular parish do not want the TLM but the priest and bishop do, is it then imposed on the faithful even though they don’t want it and even though it is an indult Mass only and not the normative.

That seems theoretically possible.

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

I think they can Celebrate 2 Masses in one day. One NO and 1TLM. And after few months they can analyse if TLM will have an appeal to the people.

And i pray that TLM is TLM and not TLM with Pop Music.

 

[palmas85]

What if the faithful in a particular parish do not want the TLM but the priest and bishop do, is it then imposed on the faithful even though they don’t want it and even though it is an indult Mass only and not the normative.

Shades of 1970, what a thought. Maybe the experiment is almost over.

By the way, when they imposed the Pauline Rite there was no advice asked, no polls taken, no talk with the faithful and not one bit of care or concerne given to anyone or anybody. It was take it or leave it buddy

I say bring it on

 

[mcliffor]

Does it really matter what the people want? A lot of people want birth control to be right and bans on gay marriage to be wrong, but it doesn’t work that way. Why does the liturgy suddenly have to express the will of the people? Maybe there’s a problem with the people if they are turned off by things like art, sacred music, a liturgical language and a step away from a anthropocentric liturgy. Just saying.

When JPII came out with the indult, the goal was to keep people from leaving the church because they weren’t allowed to have the latin mass, so it had to be asked for and wanted. A universal indult, among other things, would send the message that this is an alternative liturgy for the world it’s there for people who are curious, not people who need it. The pope might be doing this for liturgical reasons rather than to try and save disgruntled traditionalists from leaving.

 

[Brendan]

What if the faithful in a particular parish do not want the TLM but the priest and bishop do, is it then imposed on the faithful even though they don’t want it and even though it is an indult Mass only and not the normative.

Oh, you mean how the NO Mass in the Vernacular is an Indult. The NO Mass in Latin is the Normative Mass.

So if the faithful want the Normative Mass, the priest should just switch to the Latin NO, correct?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Oh, you mean how the NO Mass in the Vernacular is an Indult. The NO Mass in Latin is the Normative Mass.

So if the faithful want the Normative Mass, the priest should just switch to the Latin NO, correct?

I don’t believe that the current Mass in the vernacular is an Indult, isn’t it just an option, like the use of Eucharistic Prayer 2 instead of 1?

 

[Brendan]

I don’t believe that the current Mass in the vernacular is an Indult, isn’t it just an option, like the use of Eucharistic Prayer 2 instead of 1?

It is an indult because permission to say the Mass in the vernacular can be removed at any time. The Holy See delegated the authority to either allow or prohibit the vernacular to the local Ordinary, subject to approval by the National Conferece.

The NO in Latin cannot be prohibited.

It is very much like the TLM is how it can be regulated, with the exception that a National Conference can prohibit the vernacular Mass, while it cannot prohibit the TLM.

So technically, the vernacular Mass is under MORE of a regulation than the TLM.

 

[AlexV]

The Novus Ordo Missae in a vernacular language is most definitely and certainly an Indult Mass.

No question.

A good thing for people to remember when they’re inclined to start shouting about “norms” and “indults”.

A local bishop can regulate the use of the vernacular in his diocese (e.g., a priest can’t just decide to say Mass in French one day for no good reason).

A local bishop CANNOT prevent ANY Roman Rite priest from using the 2002 Missal in Latin.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It is an indult because permission to say the Mass in the vernacular can be removed at any time. The Holy See delegated the authority to either allow or prohibit the vernacular to the local Ordinary, subject to approval by the National Conferece.

The NO in Latin cannot be prohibited.

It is very much like the TLM is how it can be regulated, with the exception that a National Conference can prohibit the vernacular Mass, while it cannot prohibit the TLM.

So technically, the vernacular Mass is under MORE of a regulation than the TLM.

So can you point us to the actual document spelling out this Indult?

I do not think that this is technically an Indult as the TLM is governed by an Indult.

 

[Brendan]

Sacrosanctum Concilium #36

Note how approval for the vernacular Mass requires approvals before it can be used ( something that is normative requries no approvals).

Now compare that language to Ecclesia Dei 6 (c)

 

[AlexV]

Once again, the document hounding when reality is displeasing.

The Latin 2002 Missal requires no permission whatsoever for use by any Latin Rite priest. No bishop can restrict its use in any way.

The vernacular does require permission, and a bishop can restrict its use.

Liturgy 101.

 

[Sola_Roma]

Father Z’s blog is reporting a signing date for the indult. He stresses it’s a third-hand rumor but let’s hope he’s wrong and it’s not a rumor but a fact.

Please grant this God.
I dont want to have to resort to Santa Claus.
But Christmas is coming amd im getting desperate.