Universal Indult News!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Unfinished
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Unfinished

Guest
Forgive me if this has been posted before, but some new “concrete” news on the Latin Mass universal indult…and it is depressing.

This is from Domus Dei. (domusdei.org/)
  1. The document will definitely be a Motu Proprio. (That means it will be from the Pope and not a document of a Congregation or joint document issued by different dicasteries.)
  2. At the beginning of November it was in its final draft, after four revisions.
  3. During the third week of November it was suggested that the document might come out in about three weeks. This would put it around… well… now.
  4. It will authorize private celebration of Mass with the 1962 Missal by any priest as he chooses. Public Masses will be regulated by the bishop.
  5. What a “private” Mass is will be defined in the document. A number will be established for what constitutes a “private” Mass. Provided the group is that size, no permission of the bishop will be necessary.
  6. If I understand it right, and I admit I might be confused, there might be something in the document about greater numbers of people (than what would constitute a “private” Mass) being allowed to attend without the bishop’s permission so long as a Mass in the Novus Ordo is first provided for those who want it. I am not sure about this element, but it might be a prudent solution. If I am right about this element of the document, the idea would be to ensure that a priest doesn’t simply stop offering people the chance to attend the Novus Ordo and thus force everyone to go to the older form. See what I mean?
  7. The document will stress the obligation of bishops to be “generous” in allowing the older form of Mass to be offered publicly with language much strong than that in the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei adflicta” of John Paul II.
Anyone have any thought on what will now constitute a “private Mass?” I always thought a private Mass was…just the priest. What about the “regulated by the Bishops?” Could be good (to prevent an all Tridentine Parish if the Bishop does not wish it…) or it could be bad. (Latin Mass? In MY diocese? NOPE)

As long as a Novus Ordo is celebrated for those who desire it, then the Tridentine Mass could also be used. Any thoughts on that?
 
Unfinished said:
Forgive me if this has been posted before, but some new “concrete” news on the Latin Mass universal indult…and it is depressing.

This is from Domus Dei. (domusdei.org/)
  1. The document will definitely be a Motu Proprio. (That means it will be from the Pope and not a document of a Congregation or joint document issued by different dicasteries.)
  2. At the beginning of November it was in its final draft, after four revisions.
  3. During the third week of November it was suggested that the document might come out in about three weeks. This would put it around… well… now.
  4. It will authorize private celebration of Mass with the 1962 Missal by any priest as he chooses. Public Masses will be regulated by the bishop.
  5. What a “private” Mass is will be defined in the document. A number will be established for what constitutes a “private” Mass. Provided the group is that size, no permission of the bishop will be necessary.
  6. If I understand it right, and I admit I might be confused, there might be something in the document about greater numbers of people (than what would constitute a “private” Mass) being allowed to attend without the bishop’s permission so long as a Mass in the Novus Ordo is first provided for those who want it. I am not sure about this element, but it might be a prudent solution. If I am right about this element of the document, the idea would be to ensure that a priest doesn’t simply stop offering people the chance to attend the Novus Ordo and thus force everyone to go to the older form. See what I mean?
  7. The document will stress the obligation of bishops to be “generous” in allowing the older form of Mass to be offered publicly with language much strong than that in the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei adflicta” of John Paul II.
Anyone have any thought on what will now constitute a “private Mass?” I always thought a private Mass was…just the priest. What about the “regulated by the Bishops?” Could be good (to prevent an all Tridentine Parish if the Bishop does not wish it…) or it could be bad. (Latin Mass? In MY diocese? NOPE)

As long as a Novus Ordo is celebrated for those who desire it, then the Tridentine Mass could also be used. Any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
Depressing indeed… still can be regulated by the Bishop - so if this is true, it will still be in thier clutches. Doesent sound like a universal Indult at all… The Mass of Ages shouldnt even need an Indult!.. ugh.

Sounds like a cop-out.
 
Unfinished said:
Forgive me if this has been posted before, but some new “concrete” news on the Latin Mass universal indult…and it is depressing.

This is from Domus Dei. (domusdei.org/)
  1. The document will definitely be a Motu Proprio. (That means it will be from the Pope and not a document of a Congregation or joint document issued by different dicasteries.)
  2. At the beginning of November it was in its final draft, after four revisions.
  3. During the third week of November it was suggested that the document might come out in about three weeks. This would put it around… well… now.
  4. It will authorize private celebration of Mass with the 1962 Missal by any priest as he chooses. Public Masses will be regulated by the bishop.
  5. What a “private” Mass is will be defined in the document. A number will be established for what constitutes a “private” Mass. Provided the group is that size, no permission of the bishop will be necessary.
  6. If I understand it right, and I admit I might be confused, there might be something in the document about greater numbers of people (than what would constitute a “private” Mass) being allowed to attend without the bishop’s permission so long as a Mass in the Novus Ordo is first provided for those who want it. I am not sure about this element, but it might be a prudent solution. If I am right about this element of the document, the idea would be to ensure that a priest doesn’t simply stop offering people the chance to attend the Novus Ordo and thus force everyone to go to the older form. See what I mean?
  7. The document will stress the obligation of bishops to be “generous” in allowing the older form of Mass to be offered publicly with language much strong than that in the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei adflicta” of John Paul II.
Anyone have any thought on what will now constitute a “private Mass?” I always thought a private Mass was…just the priest. What about the “regulated by the Bishops?” Could be good (to prevent an all Tridentine Parish if the Bishop does not wish it…) or it could be bad. (Latin Mass? In MY diocese? NOPE)

As long as a Novus Ordo is celebrated for those who desire it, then the Tridentine Mass could also be used. Any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
How can this be true. It doesn’t change the status of the Mass at all. Did the Pope really give in to the French bishops?
 
CatholicNick said:
Depressing indeed… still can be regulated by the Bishop - so if this is true, it will still be in thier clutches. Doesent sound like a universal Indult at all… The Mass of Ages shouldnt even need an Indult!.. ugh.

Sounds like a cop-out.
Click to expand...
But that is the situation we are in. We are under authority. From this document it seems like the Holy Father is moving in the right direction, but as the OP said is being careful to ensure that both masses are available. Given that many people, myself included, see a reverent NO with some latin as the ideal for us, it is important to protect both forms. While in Britain our bishops are very sensible and moderate, I do understand your point after seeing the youtube video of Bishop Brown refusing communion to a kneeling woman. 😦
 
Titus said:
But that is the situation we are in. We are under authority. From this document it seems like the Holy Father is moving in the right direction, but as the OP said is being careful to ensure that both masses are available. Given that many people, myself included, see a reverent NO with some latin as the ideal for us, it is important to protect both forms. While in Britain our bishops are very sensible and moderate, I do understand your point after seeing the youtube video of Bishop Brown refusing communion to a kneeling woman. 😦
Click to expand...
The problem is not the protection of both forms- if a truly universal indult is granted that doesnt mean every priest will automaticaly go back to the traditional Mass (as much I would love to see that, it wouldnt happen). The problem rather lies with the Tridentine Mass (if true, only public Tridentine Masses) being regulated by the Bishops, and frankly speaking many Bishops wouldnt hesitate to turn their noses up at the request for a Tridentine Mass.
 
Caesar said:
The problem is not the protection of both forms- if a truly universal indult is granted that doesnt mean every priest will automaticaly go back to the traditional Mass (as much I would love to see that, it wouldnt happen). The problem rather lies with the Tridentine Mass (if true, only public Tridentine Masses) being regulated by the Bishops, and frankly speaking many Bishops wouldnt hesitate to turn their noses up at the request for a Tridentine Mass.
Click to expand...
We know that the Bishops are disobediant to the Pope’s wishes in this regard. He asked them to be generous, gave them 20 years to do it, and they didn’t.
When you have Bishops watching their country drown in modernist mud and doing nothing to save their flock, he has the authority to step in. It’s like hiring a babysitter to sit your kids, but you find out after three hours of being gone that she’s incapable. What parent wouldn’t step in and take away the childs authority on the matter?

If these rumours are true, the MP would do absolutely nothing. How is the Latin Mass supposed to impact the NO if priests are only allowed to say it behind closed doors. What would this do to revitalize the liturgy and enrich the liturgical life of the world’s Catholics?
 
Makes me appreciate how wise the SSPXers are to stay right where they are. Which is to say, as far away from conciliar compromisers as they can get.

Rome will come around eventually on the Mass of the Ages. Not anytime soon, but eventually.
 
Jaxon said:
Makes me appreciate how wise the SSPXers are to stay right where they are. Which is to say, as far away from conciliar compromisers as they can get.

Rome will come around eventually on the Mass of the Ages. Not anytime soon, but eventually.
Click to expand...
In schism?
And people can talk all they want, they were and are disobedient to the Sovereign Pontiff.
 
Jaxon said:
Makes me appreciate how wise the SSPXers are to stay right where they are. Which is to say, as far away from conciliar compromisers as they can get.

Rome will come around eventually on the Mass of the Ages. Not anytime soon, but eventually.
Click to expand...
Can we please not turn this into an SSPX thread? Thanks.
 
mark_a said:
Yes, no, maybe, I don’t know. What do the following terms mean:

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Baiscly it means that the Pope is releasing a document that gives all priests permission to say the Latin Mass, regardless of their Bishops.

But, it appears there will be a new defintion of what constitutes a “private” Mass. I doubt the Pope would release this just to tell all the priests they have permission to say it by themselves, because they already had that as far as I know.

The priests I am not AS worried about, they can still celebrate it for themselves anyway. The laypeople are the ones most hurt if this indult is not quite as “universal” as we first hoped.
 
mark_a said:
What do the following terms mean:

universal indult
Domus Dei.
Motu Proprio
a document of a Congregation
joint document issued by different dicasteries
Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei adflicta”
Click to expand...
Universal Indult is the catch-all term that has been coined regarding the rumors that Pope Benedict will loosen the restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). An Indult is an exception that is permitted to the norms - for instance priests who offer the TLM do so with an Indult (special permission) because the norm for priests of the Roman Rite would be to offer Mass according to the 1970 Roman Missal (Novus Ordo Mass). It is rumored that Pope Benedict will allow all Roman Rite priests to offer it. That means it won’t be an Indult anymore and thus Universal Indult is probably a poor choice of words but it does get the idea across.

Domus Dei is the name of the blog where the original poster in this thread got his info. I belive it is Latin for “The House of God”.

Motu Proprio means something to the effect of “by his own accord” in Latin. When a pope releases a document motu proprio it means that it is of his own initiative and is not released through one of the congregations. It also means he most likely wrote it himself.
**
A document of a Congregation** is a very broad term. It would be exactly what it sounds like - any document relesed by a Congregation of the Vatican. And example would be Redemptionis Sacramentum, the document on Liturgical abuses that was released a couple of yrs back by the Congregation for Divine Worship and signed by Cardinal Arinze. Now, had this document been released Motu Proprio then it would have been signed by JPII instead of just approved by him and signed by Cardinal Arinze.

A joint document issued by different dicasteries is another term that can apply to many different things. If I remember correctly a dicastery is a department of the Vatican. If a document covered something that fell under the authority of multiple dicasteries then they may issue a joint document. The document “Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life” concerning the New Age Movement was jointly issued by the Pontifical Councils for Culture and for Interreligious Dialogue, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

The Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei Adflicta” was the document issued by Pope John Paul II in 1988 that, among other things, loosened restrictions on the Tridentine Mass. The Holy Father said:

*"**moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962."

*However this request has been ignored by a large number of bishops. And this is why there is talk of Pope Benedict now issuing the Universal Indult which may make it easier for priests to offer the TLM without first seeking the permission of the bishop.

Hope this helps a bit

James
 
Unfinished said:
Can we please not turn this into an SSPX thread? Thanks.
Click to expand...
I agree, I guess, that this ought not turn into an “SSPX thread” (for whatever is your definition of that), but I think the SSPX angle, if you will, is the most interesting bit of this. That is, if #6 is true:
Unfinished said:
  1. If I understand it right, and I admit I might be confused, there might be something in the document about greater numbers of people (than what would constitute a “private” Mass) being allowed to attend without the bishop’s permission so long as a Mass in the Novus Ordo is first provided for those who want it. I am not sure about this element, but it might be a prudent solution. If I am right about this element of the document, the idea would be to ensure that a priest doesn’t simply stop offering people the chance to attend the Novus Ordo and thus force everyone to go to the older form. See what I mean?
Click to expand...
Then SSPX would have to offer the current Order of the Mass, or remain status quo. A neat trick.

If any of this is true, but I ain’t holding my breath :nope:

tee
 
BillyT92679 said:
In schism?
And people can talk all they want, they were and are disobedient to the Sovereign Pontiff.
Click to expand...
You know, blind obedience isn’t Catholic. If the Sovereign Pontiff is being disobedient to Tradition and is compelling you to do the same, you are obliged to disobey him in order to fulfill a higher law. St. Athanasius was also disobedient to the pope at the time and was excommunicated for maintaining the true Catholic faith against Arianism, and he is a saint now (obviously).
 
Anima_Christi said:
St. Athanasius was also disobedient to the pope at the time and was excommunicated for maintaining the true Catholic faith against Arianism, and he is a saint now (obviously).
Click to expand...
No the Arians ex-communicated him, and the Pope at that time did not fall into the Arian heresy.
 
tee_eff_em said:
I agree, I guess, that this ought not turn into an “SSPX thread” (for whatever is your definition of that), but I think the SSPX angle, if you will, is the most interesting bit of this. That is, if #6 is true:

tee
Click to expand...
I don’t want it to degrade, as so many do, into a “SSPX IS WRONG!” thread.

I just wanted to hear some thoughts on what everyone thought of this new information.
 
Do you know what Fr. Z’s source is? It’s so depressing! I want hope!
 
Anima_Christi said:
St. Athanasius was also disobedient to the pope at the time and was excommunicated for maintaining the true Catholic faith against Arianism, and he is a saint now (obviously).
Click to expand...
No the Arians ex-communicated him, and the Pope at that time did not fall into the Arian heresy.
 
The situation of the SSPX is very much tied into the Universal Indult, which will likely be neither.

If the rumors of the proposed changes as reported here are true, it will be worthless. And a nice kick in the teeth to some loyal sons and daughters of the Church who have remained faithful when all common sense would tell them they should have made other arrangements.
 
Jaxon said:
The situation of the SSPX is very much tied into the Universal Indult, which will likely be neither.

If the rumors of the proposed changes as reported here are true, it will be worthless. And a nice kick in the teeth to some loyal sons and daughters of the Church who have remained faithful when all common sense would tell them they should have made other arrangements.
Click to expand...
Then common sense and the Holy Spirit have little in common. The first can be useful, but the Second will never prompt schism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top