Universal Indult News!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Unfinished
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
you are putting words in my keyboard. i never said anything about schism. other arrangements does not mean schism.
 
Am I reading #6 right? Because the way I read it, it says that a priest could offer a TLM without permission as long as a NO Mass is provided alongside it. For example:

A local priest wants to offer a low TLM on a Tuesday. He will be able to do this privately, no matter what, as long as the attendance is within a certain size. Alternatively, he could do it publically, without permission, as long as he also gives a NO on the same day. The way I read this, this is just a way to prevent a parish from turning into an exclusively TLM parish without someone’s consent higher up. It looks like a move by the pope to allow the TLM at any time in any parish, and yet reassert the primacy of the NO.

Now, if this is combined with continued reforms of the NO liturgy, as I suspect it will be, it seems likely that this will probably be the widest extent of an indult for that TLM that we’ll see. I think he’s trying to satisfy the traditionalists while cleaning up the NO and restoring it to the way it was supposed to be performed. (We’ve already got pro multis fixed, a revision to the Order of the Mass in the works, new rules for music, and so on…)
 
Am I reading #6 right? Because the way I read it, it says that a priest could offer a TLM without permission as long as a NO Mass is provided alongside it. For example:

A local priest wants to offer a low TLM on a Tuesday. He will be able to do this privately, no matter what, as long as the attendance is within a certain size. Alternatively, he could do it publically, without permission, as long as he also gives a NO on the same day. The way I read this, this is just a way to prevent a parish from turning into an exclusively TLM parish without someone’s consent higher up. It looks like a move by the pope to allow the TLM at any time in any parish, and yet reassert the primacy of the NO.

Now, if this is combined with continued reforms of the NO liturgy, as I suspect it will be, it seems likely that this will probably be the widest extent of an indult for that TLM that we’ll see. I think he’s trying to satisfy the traditionalists while cleaning up the NO and restoring it to the way it was supposed to be performed. (We’ve already got pro multis fixed, a revision to the Order of the Mass in the works, the end to purification by extraordinary ministers, new rules for music, and so on…)
 
Am I reading #6 right? Because the way I read it, it says that a priest could offer a TLM without permission as long as a NO Mass is provided alongside it. For example:

A local priest wants to offer a low TLM on a Tuesday. He will be able to do this privately, no matter what, as long as the attendance is within a certain size. Alternatively, he could do it publically, without permission, as long as he also gives a NO on the same day. The way I read this, this is just a way to prevent a parish from turning into an exclusively TLM parish without someone’s consent higher up. It looks like a move by the pope to allow the TLM at any time in any parish, and yet reassert the primacy of the NO.

Now, if this is combined with continued reforms of the NO liturgy, as I suspect it will be, it seems likely that this will probably be the widest extent of an indult for that TLM that we’ll see. I think he’s trying to satisfy the traditionalists while cleaning up the NO and restoring it to the way it was supposed to be performed. (We’ve already got pro multis fixed, a revision to the Order of the Mass in the works, the end to purification by extraordinary ministers, new rules for music, and so on…) I still see this as positive.
 
Jaxon said:
you are putting words in my keyboard. i never said anything about schism. other arrangements does not mean schism.
Click to expand...
Good to know, but I’m puzzled as to what else “have remained faithful when all common sense would tell them they should have made other arrangements” could mean. What other arrangements are there that can be posited against fidelity?
 
we’ve had 40 years to reform the new mass. if it hasn’t been done by now, i don’t see it happening.

and what exactly is reform anyway? considering that, if all the options are performed exactly as described in the missal, you could have as many as 200 different versions of the same mass on a given day, i’m wondering what the whole point is of reform. seems to me an expanded permission for the old mass should be kept distinct from any monkeying around with the new mass. they are completely different masses and need to be dealt with individually.
 
there are many options. a faithful catholic, faced with an untenable situation, may have recourse to many different options.

having a retired eastern rite priest come into a home and say the divine liturgy, for instance, is an option an aquantance of mine exercised. if i lived in certain dioceses, i’m not sure what i’d do. when attending an abuse ridden mass becomes a near occasion of sin, options simply must be explored.
 
Jaxon said:
we’ve had 40 years to reform the new mass. if it hasn’t been done by now, i don’t see it happening.
Click to expand...
Except that throughout history, it hasn’t been uncommon to take as long as 100 years or more for the wishes of various councils to be enacted. The periods after councils tend to be somewhat unsettled and tumultuous for a while.
 
especially when a council’s documents tend to be vague, ambiguous and open to dozens of interpretations.
 
Jaxon said:
and what exactly is reform anyway? considering that, if all the options are performed exactly as described in the missal, you could have as many as 200 different versions of the same mass on a given day, i’m wondering what the whole point is of reform. seems to me an expanded permission for the old mass should be kept distinct from any monkeying around with the new mass. they are completely different masses and need to be dealt with individually.
Click to expand...
Liturgical abuse is precisely abuse. Its when the rubrics are not followed. 200 different abuses within a single day, yes. But versions, no.
 
following an approved option is not an abuse. 200 different versions of the new mass can easily be said on a given day. quite licitly and according to the rubrics.
 
James0235 said:
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
Click to expand...
Thanks so much!
 
Astonishing how people with little more than two decades of life under their belts seem to settle into the role of “armchair pontiff” or “personal magisterium” with such great ease and presume to sit in judgement on popes and councils.
 
Anima_Christi said:
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).
Click to expand...
Of course this begs the question “What does this have to do with anything?” Are you saying that the Sovereign Pontiff is disobeying Tradition? Also, see demerzel85’s post on the Arian heresy. One can find this in Denzinger’s.
 
This is NOT “Universal Indult News”.

It is little jack corner’s rumor mill and they have all been running amuck since Benedict XVI’s election.

An indult that is designed to reconcile the SSPX will never have restrictions on it period.

And to help the Church in its present state the Pope MUST allow unlimited and unrestricted celebration of the TLM according to the 1962 missal.

Ken
 
kleary said:
This is NOT “Universal Indult News”.

It is little jack corner’s rumor mill and they have all been running amuck since Benedict XVI’s election.

An indult that is designed to reconcile the SSPX will never have restrictions on it period.

And to help the Church in its present state the Pope MUST allow unlimited and unrestricted celebration of the TLM according to the 1962 missal.

Ken
Click to expand...
Actually, only your first paragraph is of necessity (and historically) true. It is entirely possible that there may be restrictions on an indult designed to reconcile the SSPX. Whether they respond or not is up to them (God help their souls if they don’t). The last sentence is the most obvious example of “armchair popery.” He MUSN’T do anything at all, if he doesn’t believe that he should. He can take any action that he sees fit. The Church would be fine and will be fine even IF the Tridentine Mass were repressed (I’m not advocating that, so kindly try to stay on topic). A little historical perspective helps: this isn’t the first time the Church has had troubles, from the inside or from the outside.
 
bear06 said:
Of course this begs the question “What does this have to do with anything?” Are you saying that the Sovereign Pontiff is disobeying Tradition? Also, see demerzel85’s post on the Arian heresy. One can find this in Denzinger’s.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually Paul VI and John Paul II were often disobedient to Tradition.
 
And, while you’re at it, can you also show where they were compelling us to do the same?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top